Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 20th December, 1928, for the Christmas Recess—met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Battersea (South Division), in the room of Francis Richard Henry Penn Curzon, commonly called Viscount Curzon, now Earl Howe. —[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (MILK).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council has now completed its Report upon milk prices; and when it will be published?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that the preparation of the Report has reached an advanced stage, but I cannot give a definite date for its publication.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get this Report issued as soon as possible in order that the public may know before the revision of prices takes place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure that the Council are making all possible progress towards the issue of the Report: I think they are doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEWING GUM.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of the amount of chewing gum imported into this country for the last 12 months as well as the amount produced at home; and how the figures compare with those for the preceding year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a table of figures, with notes; and my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to safeguard this important commodity?

Mr. W. THORNE: What about "stickjaw"?

Following is the answer:

No figures are available regarding the imports of chewing gum into, or its production in, this country. The following statement, however, shows the figures
in the trade returns of the United States and Canada, respectively, relating to the exports of chewing gum from those countries to the United Kingdom in the latest periods for which the information is available.

Exports of Chewing Gum to the United Kingdom.


(a) From the United States.


1925.
1926.


Quantity.
Value.
Quantity.
Value.


Lbs.
£
Lbs
£


1,688,629
133,621
2,322,576
177,958

(b)From Canada.*


Years ending 31st March.
Six months ending 30th September, 1928.


1926–7.
1927–8.



£
£
£


51,442
59,735
12,979


* Recorded by value only.

What part, if any, of these imports is re-exported to other countries cannot be determined from the available records. It may be added that the exports of chicle gum, the principle constituent of chewing gum, from the countries where it is produced or handled, to this country, so far as they are recorded, are unimportant.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to announce when the British forces will be withdrawn from Shanghai?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No,
Sir, this must depend on the local situation. But of the additional battalions sent to China, three will have been withdrawn by the end of this trooping season.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the local situation sufficiently satisfactory now to enable all troops to be withdrawn?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is so much improved that a great many of our troops have been or are in course of being withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did I not see in the papers that the people in Shanghai are proposing to raise a volunteer force to take the place of our troops?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There has always been a volunteer force in Shanghai.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that volunteer force now held to be sufficiently strong to render the presence of our own troops no longer necessary?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the fact that this volunteer force is composed very largely, if not almost entirely, of British subjects, and throws a considerable strain on the mercantile community?

TARIFF TREATIES.

Mr. LESTRANGE MALONE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make regarding the conclusion of new treaties with China?

Mr. THURTLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give the House particulars of the treaty which has been concluded with the Chinese Nationalist Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The text; of the Tariff Autonomy Treaty signed at Nanking by Sir M. Lampson and Dr. C. T. Wang on the 20th of December has been published in the Press. Tariff treaties with the National Government of China have also been signed by the United States of America, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, France and Spain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that full recognition has now been accorded to the Nationalist Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May we take it that Japan has not yet signed the Treaty? If not, does not the present position with regard to Great Britain remain the same under the mostfavoured-nation clause?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure what the position is with regard to Japan.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CLYDE BRIDGE, FINNESTOUN.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Glasgow corporation secured powers some time ago to build a bridge over the Clyde at that part known as Finnestoun; if he is aware that little progress has been made in the direction of having it built; and if, in view of the great urgency of providing this bridge and the work that would be given to the unemployed, he will take any steps to assist the town council to carry out this work?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I understand that as soon as the Glasgow Corporation had obtained the necessary powers for the construction of the bridge, negotiations were opened for the acquisition of land, the alteration of railway lines, etc. I am informed that tenders have been invited for the sinking of bore-holes and these tenders will shortly be in the hands of the Corporation.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the present position of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: Negotiations are actively proceeding between the London County Council, the Southern Railway and my Department, and various proposals have been examined. The magnitude of the scheme and the very important interests affected make prolonged investigations and negotiations inevitable. I regret that I am unable to make any statement at the present time. and I am satisfied that it is undesirable that I should do so. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that the negotiations are being pressed forward by all parties as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLES (CONVERSION).

Mr. KELLY: 11.
asked the Postmaster-General what length of telephone line is to be converted from pole line to under ground within the next three months; and is be aware of the number of men under notice of dismissal from works manufacturing material for this purpose in such places as Woodville and Stafford shire?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Main underground trunk telephone cables are provided mainly to meet anticipated growth of traffic and they augment rather than displace existing main overhead routes. As regards local circuits, it is estimated that about 13,500 miles of overhead wires will be replaced by underground wires within the next three months. I am aware generally of the position in regard to employment in the works referred to; and, while I cannot order material in excess of requirements, I endeavour, in this case as in others, to distribute orders to Post Office contractors in such a manner as to avoid, so far as possible temporary unemployment.

FOOTPATHS, ALDERSHOT (RESTORATION).

Mr. KELLY: 12.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been arrived at to restore the footpaths on six of the main roads of Aldershot where telephone cables have been laid; what reports have reached him as to the dangerous and bad condition of these roads as left by the Post Office officials?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Much of the restoration work has been effected and completion of the remainder will be expedited as far as possible. Certain sections of cement paving are, however, still the subject of discussion with the local authorities as regards the method of restoration to be adopted. I am informed that at no time have the disturbed footpaths presented any danger to pedestrians.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to prevent the inconvenience which arises consequent upon the quarrel between his Department and the local authorities?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think there is any quarrel. As far as I remember the facts, the local authorities are not yet decided as to the exact method of restoration they desire.

RHINELAND EVACUATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 15 and 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, seeing that in the December conversations at Lugano, Herr Strese-mann made it clear that Germany would not consent to the proposed control committee continuing in the Rhineland after the year 1935, he will say whether the duration of this control committee is still a matter of negotiations; and what view of the matter is now taken by His Majesty's Government;
(2) whether he can give the House any account as to the progress of the negotiations with reference to the evacuation of the Rhineland or the duration of the committee of control?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the Rhineland, there has been no change in the situation since I spoke during the Debate on the Adjournment on the 20th of December last. In speaking of a "control committee," I presume that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intends to refer to the Commission of Verification and Conciliation mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the Geneva Resolution of 16th September, 1928. The word "control" was not used in the Resolution and would convey an entirely wrong impression of the character and purpose of the body to be created. The Geneva Resolution stated that the six Powers were agreed as to
the acceptance of the principle of the constitution of a Commission of Verification and Conciliation, and that the composition, operation, object and duration of the said commission will form the subject of negotiations between the Governments concerned.
Methods of giving effect to this Resolution are, I doubt not, being studied by the Governments, but no negotiations are at present in progress.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey the idea that the German Government have accepted this Committee—the Control Committee, I think they call it. Are they still in favour of it; or have the
German Government changed their mind and now say that they are not in favour of this Committee continuing to control the Rhineland after 1935?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I carefully refrained from extending my answer to the assumptions underlying the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question: and I do not think it would be helpful for me to do so. The three Governments undertook to study this question; and they are doing so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I desire to find out is this—I do not want to ask any questions which would be inconvenient—have the German Government changed their attitude. In September the German Chancellor more or less accepted the prospect of this Committee; have the German Government made any change on that?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. We are proceeding on the Resolution to which the German Chancellor, Dr. Muller, was a party in September.

PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda regarding the case of Mr. A. J. Brewer, second officer of the Clan Line s.s. "Clan Lamont," who, after arrest on the charge of theft of £l, was imprisoned for nine months, while awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa, and was then condemned to 360 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and, if so, what action his Department intends to take in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda on the case of Mr. Brewer has been received and is being carefully considered. I propose in Mr. Brewer's own interests to await his arrival in this country in order that certain points may be cleared up before a decision is possible as to what further action can be taken.

STEAMSHIP"PLAWSWORTH"(A. DONALDSON).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
the result of the inquiries he caused to be instituted by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington with regard to the case of Mr. A. Donaldson, fireman on s.s. "Plawsworth," who went ashore without a passport while his vessel was unloading at Galveston, Texas, in September, 1927, and was kept in the county gaol without a trial for 12 months, and was subsequently released without explanation and without trial, having to work his way back to Tilbury; and whether any representations have been made by his Department to the United States Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has received a report from His Majesty's Consul at Galveston who states that Donaldson's story is devoid of foundation, that there is no record either at the Customs house or at His Majesty's Consulate at Galveston of the arrival of the steamship "Plawsworth," on which ship Donaldson alleged that he was serving, at Galveston or neighbouring ports during 1927, and that Donaldson's name does not appear in the files of the Immigration Department, gaol or police authorities at Galveston or Houston. Further, I have ascertained from the Registrar-General of Shipping that a man called Andrew Donaldson signed on as fireman on the 4th July, 1927, on the steamship "Plawsworth," which was then engaged in the home trade. On the 9th September, the day on which he alleged he was arrested at Galveston, the vessel was at Hartlepool, Durham. On the 17th September, according to the ship's papers, Donaldson failed to rejoin his vessel at West Dunston-on-Tyne.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to have Mr. Donaldson certified or otherwise incarcerated, if his version of the matter is not true?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not my duty. I think I have shown the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Donaldson is not suited to be a protegé of his.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been demolished under slum-
clearance schemes in the last four years; and how many persons formerly living under slum conditions have been re-housed under these schemes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Information in regard to the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is only available from the 1st April, 1925. Between that date and 3lst December, 1928, the latest date for which particulars have been furnished, 8,540 buildings have been acquired for demolition, 6,002 buildings have been demolished and 6,949 new dwellings have been erected in connection with slum clearance schemes. It is estimated that approximately 31,000 persons have been re-housed in these new dwellings.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise any increase of these very meagre operations—meagre compared with the number of people in the slums?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure we would all like to see more progress made. As a fact, during the last few years progress has been made with greater rapidity than before, and I think it can be said that, with the great accession to the number of new houses, local authorities will now be able to turn their attention much more vigorously to the question of slum clearance.

Mr. MALONE: Has the Department any figures which show the numbers of the population still living in slum habitations?

Sir K. WOOD: I require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present unemployed and the number working short time?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): At 14th January, 1929, there were 1,435,000 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, of whom 1,140,000 were wholly unemployed and 295,000 temporarily stopped from the services of their
employers. Separate statistics of the number of persons on short time are not available.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it, the new method to omit the word "million" in order to try to minimise the total?

Mr. LUNN: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of persons registered as unemployed on 1st January, 1929, and the total number registered on 1st January, 1928, with comparative figures of the total number of miners registered as unemployed on the two above-mentioned dates?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LUNN: As there are so few questions on the Paper and there is an hour allowed for questions, and as this is a most important question as to the growth or decrease of unemployment, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the information now?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the House can spare five minutes, I am prepared to read the reply.

HON. MEMBERS: No, circulate it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. When the Minister is prepared to give the figures relating to such a grave matter, is not the House entitled to the information?

Mr. ERSKINE: But if the majority of the House are against it, cannot they decide?

Mr. SEXTON: Unless the answer is given now it will not be possible to ask supplementary questions challenging the Minister's reply.

Captain GARRO-JONES: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter rests with the hon. Gentleman who asked the original question.

Mr. LUNN: I agree with my hon. Friend who put the point that the answer may not be satisfactory to the House, and that there may be reasons for putting other questions, or even for making suggestions that would be helpful to the Minister.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The reply is as follows:

The latest available figures for unemployment in the coal mining industry relate to the 17th December, 1928, and the following table accordingly gives the live register figures for that date (and the corresponding date in 1927). as well as for 31st December, 1928, and 2nd January, 1928:


—
Total on Live Register.
Insured Persons recorded as unemployed in Coal Mining.


31st December, 1928
1,520,730
Figures not available.


2nd January, 1928
1,336,303


17th December, 1928
1,271,122
212,984*


19 th December, 1927
1,100,052
207,196†


* Aged 16 to 64.


† Aged 16 and over.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The reading of the reply has occupied exactly one minute.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the alarming number of unemployed in the country, may I ask whether the only prescription of the Government is charity to deal with the matter, or whether, now that we are beginning a new Session, they have any scheme which would find work for the unemployed or for any number of them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise strictly out of the question.

Mr. SEXTON: Do the figures given show the numbers of men registered from the Liverpool Dock Clearing House, and is it not a fact that a large percentage are permanently out of work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That point does not arise out of the original question, but, if the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper, I will obtain what information I can.

BENEFIT CLAIMS.

Mr. KELLY: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims referred to the Umpire for unemployment insurance benefit since 1st October, 1928, and awaiting decision on 15th January, 1929?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of cases received by the Umpire between 1st October, 1928, and 15th January, 1929, was 2,386. The number awaiting decision on 15th January, was 775.

Mr. KELLY: Is anything being done to hasten the hearing of those cases, so that decisions may be given?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes; they are being expedited as far as possible. Of the 775 awaiting decision over two-thirds have come in since the new year. This is the time of year when the work is the heaviest, and therefore this is the time at which delay can be particularly expected. On the other hand, if the Umpire desires help and makes a representation to me I shall consider it.

Mr. KELLY: Why is this particular part of the year abnormal compared with other parts of the year, in the matter of decisions to be given by the Umpire?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Because immediately after Christmas there is nearly always a sudden jump in the register of claims. It is due partly to climatic conditions, such as frost and the rest. With a larger number of claimants there is a proportionately larger number of cases to be dealt with.

Mr. MALONE: How are these people supposed to live while they are awaiting the decision of the Umpire?

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of local authorities who have applied to provide schemes of work for unemployed persons, 50 per cent. of whom are drawn from mining areas; the number of such schemes approved and their total estimated cost; and in how many cases work has actually started and what is the number of persons engaged in such work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Fifty-eight local authorities have made applications for grants on the new terms involving the employment of labour from depressed areas, in respect of 96 schemes, estimated to cost £1,689,000. Twenty-six schemes of a total estimated cost of £656,000 have been approved by the Committee. Work has begun on three of these schemes, on which 36 men
are employed. I should point out that it necessarily takes a considerable time to prepare these schemes, particularly if they are of any magnitude.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts in this connection has been the employment of 36 men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. That certainly does not appear from my answer.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Health is turning down some of these schemes; and that there are local authorities in depressed areas, who would employ 100 per cent. of the unemployed miners, but, when they apply for loans for the part of the money which they have to find, they are turned down?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the hon. Member put down a question?

Mr. PALING: This question has already been put to the Minister, and he has said that he can do nothing in regard to it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to expedite the putting in hand of the extra work, other than the employment of the 36 men mentioned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These schemes are being dealt with as quickly as possible so that the work may be put in hand, but of course the hon. Member will realise the value of these schemes is not only for employment at the immediate moment, but in order to assist permanent transfers, which must necessarily take months.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of local authorities are absolutely refusing to carry out schemes because you are insisting upon 50 per cent. of the men being sent from the mining areas?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If any local authorities wish to make representations to me they can do so; but the object of these terms is to promote transfers.

Mr. SHINWELL: How many men have been employed as a result of these schemes?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already said it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say 36; and is not that precisely what I said?

Mr. LUNN: Is not the object of these schemes to provide work; and, if the condition could be removed as to 50 per cent. from the depressed areas, are there not many local authorities who would find work for men and who cannot do so to-day because of these restrictions?

Mr. PALING: Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that in such cases as I have indicated, if the local authorities care to submit the facts of the situation to him, he will reconsider the matter?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind at all. If there are any schemes which come within the ambit of the actual terms which have been promulgated, then, of course, they can be put before the St. Davids Committee and considered on their merits. I am not aware of the nature of the question put by my hon. Friend or of the reply.

Mr. PALING: May we take it that, in such cases, if the question is submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, he will confer with the Ministry of Health, in order to try to get over this difficulty?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to confer with the Ministry of Health on any matter.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman making provision for finding work for Ministers after June?

Mr. BUCHANAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred to the city of Glasgow to jobs from distressed mining areas, and the nature of the work provided?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Figures are not available for the period prior to 6th October. From that date to the end of December, 102 men from the depressed mining areas were placed in employment in the areas covered by the Glasgow Exchanges. Most of these men obtained employment as general or builder's labourers, but others secured work as miners, joiners, engineers, pattern makers, moulders and rubber spreaders.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why has the right hon. Gentleman transferred 102 men to this area, seeing that the number of unemployed already in the area is, admittedly, extremely high?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: The answer is quite simple. It is not at all the same as transferring men from South Wales or Durham to the South East of England. These areas, though classified as distressed mining areas, are really in the same economic area as Glasgow, and can properly be treated as a whole. There is naturally a certain amount of coming and going between them. In most of these areas the position happens to be worse than in Glasgow and it is obvious that the balance of transfer therefore should be to Glasgow.

Mr. J. JONES: Why arc miners being transferred to Silvertown when we already have our hands full to deal with unemployment in that area?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities who are responsible for keeping the poor and the unemployed view this proposal with alarm, because in many cases, after a few weeks' work, these miners are left chargeable to the local authorities.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of any representations from the local authorities with regard to these 102 men. I am not quite sure of the Poor Law in Scotland, as compared with England, but I believe it is the same, and, therefore, the last part of the hon. Member's objection need not arise.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number on the Sheffield register is nearly 4,000 more than it was twelve months ago and that they cannot get these schemes through?

OPERA.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been turned to the educational importance of a permanent opera in England; and whether he can give any sympathetic assistance to the League of Opera and other associations which are endeavouring to fill this gap in the national educational institutions?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I share the hon. Member's views as to the importance of opera and he may feel assured that the Government have every sympathy with the League of Opera and other associations which are endeavouring to produce opera in this country. But I fear I cannot undertake financial assistance at the cost of the Exchequer to such associations.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know much more about comic opera?

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that; every Continental country has a national opera house and that England is the only country in Europe which does not support opera in this way?

Mr. BROMLEY: Is not sufficient public money already being expended on the opera bouffe of the present Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to go into controversial topics in answer to that question, or the question of the hon. Member who spoke earlier. But I may say that I have no acquaintance with opera bouffe, though I am occasionally brought into contact with low comedians.

INCOME TAX (DOMINION AND FOREIGN VISITORS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he in tends to publish a memorandum regarding the liability for Income Tax of Dominion and foreign visitors to this country; and, if so, when?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is still under consideration.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it likely that any decision will be reached in the next month or so?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

GERMAN REPARATIONS (COMMITTEE)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information to give this House as to the negotiations about reparations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The appointment of the Committee of Experts entrusted with the task of drawing up proposals for a complete and final settlement of the reparation problem has now been completed. The committee will consist of American, Belgian, British, French, German, Italian and Japanese members, there being two members of each nationality with power to appoint deputies. The first meeting of the committee will probably be held in the first weeks of February. The British members will be Sir Josiah Stamp and Lord Revelstoke, and the British deputy members Sir Charles Addis and Sir Basil Blackett.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the House know the terms of reference of this Committee; or if there have not been any definite terms of reference, then the instructions given to the British delegates?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the problem of reparations still mixed up with the problem of the evacuation of the Rhine-land?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that question.

FOOTBALL COMPETITIONS.

Mr. NAYLOR (for Mr. DAY): 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision against football competitions, he will consider the appointment of a Committee to investigate the existing laws governing this subject and other competitions, with a view to introducing legislation legalising them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I asked the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) to postpone this question, and I understood that the hon. Member had complied with my request.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I explain? The hon. Member probably agreed to postpone the question after the consultation which we had on the matter.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (PUBLICATIONS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether any and what protests have been received by him against the proposal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to publish a weekly newspaper; whether, in view of the terms of its Charter and having regard to the fact that the Corporation is State protected and subsidised and not subject to the payment of Income Tax, he proposes to take any action to veto the proposal?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I received protests against the proposed publication of the "Listener" from associations representative of the Press. The matters in dispute have since been amicably settled in conference between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the interests affected, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise. I ought to add, however, that I must not be taken as admitting the assumptions contained therein.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation are making a profit of £200,000 a year out of the newspaper and publishing business, that they pay no Income Tax on this, and that this is diverting advertisements from newspapers which are paying tax, and can he say what is done with the money?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I have said, I am not prepared to admit the hon. and gallant Member's assumptions. The assumption contained in the last part of his question is that the Corporation is a State-subsidised service, but it would be more true to say that the State is subsidised by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The assumption is also made that the Corporation is not liable for assessment to Income Tax on its ascertained profits, but I am certainly not prepared, on behalf of the Treasury, to admit that.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that this matter has now been satisfactorily settled, will he say, in view of the public importance of the matter, what the settlement is?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the terms have already been published.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister how he came to receive a deputation of the interested parties after the Postmaster-General had refused to receive them?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In the same way that I always receive a courteous reply to a courteous request.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the practice of the right hon. Gentleman to go over the heads of his trusted Ministers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I never feel any hesitation in doing so if I think it desirable.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do we understand from the Postmaster-General's statement this afternoon that the opposition of the newspapers to this new periodical has now been withdrawn?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand that an agreed settlement was reached at the conference.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the newspapers really did not understand what the situation was when they began to cry out? Is it not really the truth that they did not understand?

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. THURTLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to find time for an early discussion of the Motion relating to the Channel Tunnel standing in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and others?—[That, in the view of this House, the construction of a Channel Tunnel would be advantageous both to this country and to Europe, as a whole, and the labour and material needed for the tunnel would increase productive employment in this country; therefore, having regard to the changed circumstances arising from diplomatic developments in Europe in recent years, the House invites the Government to take an early opportunity of reconsidering its attitude towards the project.]

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the wide public interest in the Channel Tunnel project, the Government have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe for a comprehensive re-examination
of the question. We are anxious that a very thorough examination should he made of the economic aspects of the matter, in order that these may be weighed with Imperial Defence considerations, and a decision reached on broad grounds of national policy. In view of the time that would be required to carry the project through all its stages to the completion of the tunnel, we are convinced that it would be in the public interest, if possible, to deal with this important question outside of the party atmosphere and by agreement, so that the decision of one Government may not be upset by another. If the course adopted by the right Hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1924 should again commend itself to him and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I should like to proceed on similar lines, but obtaining their co-operation from the outset of the inquiry. In these circumstances, and more especially in view of the pressure on Parliamentary time, I am not prepared to accede to the request of the hon. Member.

Mr. THURTLE: Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that his proposal is, in effect, that the matter should once again be referred to the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have given no details as to the form in which the examination will take place, but it is perfectly obvious that, on the defence side as opposed to the economic side, the Committee of Imperial Defence must be consulted.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask if, in considering this, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that there is a very large body of opinion in the country which feels that the last word on this matter ought not necessarily to rest with the Committee of Imperial Defence?

Sir ROBERT HORNE: May I ask my right hon. Friend in what way he would propose to solve the economic problem— to whom reference would be made for that discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly the point I have to consider. I think the economic side of it is of the greatest importance and a side which,
certainly for some years past, has not been investigated. I have to consider what would be the best form, possibly after consultation with the right hon. Gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, to get the evidence which would be required.

Mr. BROMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if there has been any definite ascertainment of the greatest depth of the Channel under which the proposed tunnel would have to pass, and at what gradients the railway, either by steam or electricity, would have to run?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly one of a hundred questions to which I desire an answer.

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued during the Adjournment Warrants for New Writs, namely:—

For County of Midlothian and Peebles (Northern Division) an the room of Sir George Aitken Clark Hutchison, K.O., deceased.

For County of Londonderry in the-room of the honourable Sir Malcolm Martin Macnaghten, K.B.E., K.C. (one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court of Justice).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19th December.]

[5th ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 54.—(Total exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments on the Order Paper—in page 45, line 20, at the beginning, to insert the words "Subject as hereinafter provided," and, in line 22, to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words "improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil"—are without the scope of the Bill. The third Amendment—in line 22, after the word "any," to insert the words "cultivated or grazed"—I have some doubt about on the ground of completeness, but I think I will give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), in whose name it stands, the benefit of the doubt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 45, line 22, to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words "improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil."
The Title of this Bill is "Local Government Bill," but everybody knows that the Bill has been described up and down the country as the De-rating Bill, and in this Clause 54 we come to the de-rating proposals of the Government. The whole question that we have to discuss in this Clause is what shall be de-rated, what are we to exempt from rates in order to increase production, benefit consumers, and increase employment. The Government have at last recognised that rates are an overhead charge on industry, that they add to the cost of production, that they increase prices, and that they reduce employment; and they have introduced this Clause 54 with a view to carrying out the economic truisms at the basis of their argument. When I see the method adopted by the Government for
de-rating, the way in which they select certain trades and industries for the acknowledged benefit of de-rating and leave other industries, other forms of production, penalised as they are at the present time, I feel that the Government have not learned the elementary lessons of government, and that they are acting in a way to benefit those who make the loudest noise, and those who politically are their friends. The Labour party have approached this identical problem in a different, and, I cannot help thinking, in a sounder way. They introduced a Bill last year, the object of which was de-rating, but de-rating on sound lines. The Bill, which was based upon the resolutions carried at Liverpool, was to give to all local authorities the power, if they chose to exercise it, to de-rate all improvements, both industrial and distributive.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which I called upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to move will have the effect of limiting relief to cultivated or grazed land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not quite sure which Amendment you are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN: The third Amendment—in page 45, line 22, after the word "any" to insert the words "cultivated or grazed."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is the Amendment—in page 15, line 22, to leave out the words
any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil"—
ruled out?

The CHAIRMAN: Because it is without the scope of the Title.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose that it would be in order to move the rejection of the Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman need not move the rejection of the Clause. I shall have to put it anyhow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely I am justified in moving an Amendment which will relieve all industry, and not merely some industries?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member has not read the Clause. The Clause deals solely with agricultural land, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's first Amendment is not in order, because it seeks to relieve improvements which are not dealt with by the principal Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I had no idea that you had ruled out my first Amendment. I am afraid that I did not hear in the noise what was going on. The Amendment I wish to move is to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings" and to make the Clause read:
No person shall, in respect of any period beginning on or after the appointed day, be liable to pay rates in respect of improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil, or be deemed to be in occupation thereof for rating purposes.

The CHAIRMAN: The Title reads:
To grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies.
Clause 54 is governed by that, and the effect of the right hon. and gallant-Gentleman's first Amendment will be to exempt certain other things from relief. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman now goes into the question of improvements, and an improvement is not a hereditament.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole point is that this is a Bill to relieve certain classes of improvements.

The CHAIRMAN: Improvements are not relieved, but hereditaments are.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But they are relieved of that portion of the rates due to the improvements upon the property. That is perfectly clear Three-quarters of the value of the hereditaments due to improvements is relieved of rates, and I am seeking by my Amendment to include among the hereditaments benefited, those hereditaments which are improved.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is really asking for something which did not come in last year's Act. The whole of this Clause relieves those hereditaments which were included in the last year's Act, and he cannot bring in the question of improvements.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I still do not understand the point, and I am sorry to press it. Are we debarred from discussing any question of giving relief to any hereditaments which are not at present in the Bill? For instance, are shops or empty houses—

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is the point. All that was decided in last year's Act; that cannot be raised. The question of the relief of hereditaments already set out can be raised.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Act with which we dealt last year did not say a word about rating relief. It merely classifies certain hereditaments, and it has no operative effect. Surely a Bill which makes only a catalogue of hereditaments, and says nothing whatever about rating, cannot limit us?

The CHAIRMAN: The Act last year set out a catalogue with a view to certain kinds of hereditaments being set apart from the others and being dealt with in this Bill. I must go back to the words; of the Title, which are:
To grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies.
I am not giving this decision on the spur of the moment. I have carefully thought about it. The Bill excludes any new relief.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from your ruling that we are not entitled to urge that empty houses, for instance, should not receive the benefit of this reduction in rates? Can we argue that shops or garages are not to receive the benefit?

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members can argue that the Clause does not go far enough, put they cannot move a specific Amendment dealing with hereditaments other than those set forth in last year's Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, the only way of debating the point is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SEXTON: I am anxious to keep within your Ruling, but, as the Bill only relieves a very small section of the community, are we not entitled to move that the principle be extended to all payers of local rates?

The CHAIRMAN: No, we are limited, as I said. I have no discretion in the matter. If the hon. Member reads the Title, he will see that this particular Amendment is out of order, though the next is in order.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 45, line 22, after the word "any" to insert the words "cultivated or grazed."
I must accept your Ruling, and I will deal with the matter later. The Clause, if this Amendment were made, would confine the relief to owners of agricultural land to that land which was cultivated or grazed, but it would not exempt from rates any land which was not being used in any way at the present time. Some lands are below the level of cultivation, and are not cultivated or grazed, but they are not the lands to which I want to draw attention, because in their case very little rates are paid at the present time. But I would point out that in the suburbs of our towns there are large areas of waste land, of land ripening for building purposes—often unfenced, and used as a receptacle for empty tins and dead cats. Such land is neither cultivated nor grazed. The value of that land, which is being retained for building purposes, is maintained and increased by the expenditure of the local authority on public services, but the owners of that land are, under this Bill, exempted from the payment of any rates whatever. To my mind, the owners of such land are those who should be specially asked to join the army of ratepayers and contribute towards the local expenditure. Not merely are they benefiting by the expenditure of the ratepayers' money, but so long as they keep that land ungrazed, untilled and, above all, unbuilt upon, they are keeping men in that town unemployed who otherwise could find work upon that land. The owners of such land seem to me to be dogs in the manger, and I would gladly exempt them from the benefits of this Clause.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will the right hon. and gallant Member say what benefit they get from the Clause?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They get exemption from rates.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: But they pay no rates now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They pay no rates now. Why should not they pay rates now?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: On a point of Order, I submit that if the owners of such land get no benefit under this Clause that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the land the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about is not agricultural land, and is not relieved under this Clause, and therefore his arguments on that point really cannot be pursued.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the land is called agricultural land for the purposes of local rating and gets all the benefits that come to that land at the present time. We certainly think that the owners of such land should be the first contributors towards local taxation. It may be that this Amendment would apply to a very small area of land, but anyone who has studied this question will find that there is an enormously valuable area of land in all our large towns directly affected by this Clause.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Not by this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Within the boundaries of our municipalities there are hundreds of acres, thousands of acres, to which this Amendment applies. It is land which is let for some fractionally small figure, and therefore pays a small rate, but it is enormously valuable land, and the owners of it ought to contribute more to the local rates. I feel that here we have a stronger case even than in the case of the brewery companies, because these people are profiteering directly from the expenditure of the ratepayers' money and paying nothing towards that expenditure; and to give these people the benefit of this reduction and to excuse them legally, and not merely practically, from the payment of any rates, is a crime of which only a Tory Government would be capable.

Mr. SEXTON: The stringent Ruling which you have given with regard to the first Amendments to this Clause will prevent me from putting forward some of the points which I had originally intended to submit, but I wish to endorse every word which has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel
Wedgwood). If examples are wanted I will give one or two out of dozens which are within my own personal knowledge. In the City of Liverpool land was required for the erection of an electrical station. The land selected was neither grazed nor cultivated, but was still agricultural land. The rent of it would be about £3 per acre, and at 20 years' purchase the price of that land ought to have been about £60, but because the municipality required it for municipal purposes they had to pay at the rate of £23,000 per acre. I understood that this Bill was intended to relieve ratepayers, but in the City of Liverpool the ratepayers are being penalised to the extent of £22,000 or £23,000 for an improvement which is to benefit not only the City itself but the surrounding district. There is another case where a strip of land was required for the laying down of a tram line. That land was neither grazed nor cultivated. It was only a question of laying tram lines on a strip of grass land, a narrow strip which did not in total area exceed three quarters of an acre. The agricultural value of that land was the same as in the other case which I have quoted, but the authority had to pay £7,000 for that land.

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that the hon. Member is really discussing a suggested Amendment to the Land Clauses Act or the Acquisition of Land Act, and not the question of whether agricultural land which is neither grazed nor cultivated should be relieved. The hon. Member is discussing the question of the compensation to be paid to landowners.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On that point of Order. Is it not precisely the land which the hon. Member is now discussing which this Amendment proposes to exempt from relief, and is he not entitled to show that such land is at the present time fetching terrific prices when bought compulsorily by local authorities, and therefore not to be exempted?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member may be able to get to that point; but I do not think he has done so yet.

Mr. SEXTON: I will endeavour to keep to your Ruling, but under it it is difficult to interpret the Amendment as, in my opinion, it ought to be interpreted. Open confession, they say, is good for
the soul. I happen to be, in a sort of a small way, a landowner myself. It does not extend to three acres and a cow, but it is a bit of land.—[Interruption.] And I am not ashamed of it. It is neither grazed nor cultivated. Opposite my land is other land not grazed or cultivated, and of the same agricultural value, but it has risen in value to something like £2,600 per acre. If they come along to me and offer me that price for mine, I shall take it; but I would not begrudge paying 4s. in the £ on the increased value to the local taxes. With all due respect, I wish to say that your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, has narrowed my opportunities to say what I wanted to say. The land required in the immediate vicinity of a city like Liverpool is mostly agricultural land, and yet the inhabitants of Liverpool, whom this Bill professes to de-rate or relieve, have to find £7,000,000 every year for local rates which go mostly to increase the value of the land, and the owners of the land do not pay one penny towards the local expenditure of the city. I could give cases in which common land belonging to nobody at all except the people of the village and the town has been enclosed and taken over by landowners and has been sold back to the city at very high rates. You send to gaol the man who steals the goose from off the common, but you let the greater criminal go free who steals the common from the goose.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot deal with matters of that sort under the title of this Bill. The hon. Member is now dealing with the value of land. The Amendment under discussion deals with the point whether the relief should be confined to "cultivated or grazed agricultural land" to the exclusion of woodland, etc. That is the whole point of the Amendment.

Mr. SEXTON: I find it extremely difficult to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Chairman. We are face to face with the fact that in consequence of the increased value of land created by the industry of the whole community we have to pay £350 for a square foot of land in Liverpool. The people of Liverpool who pay £7,000,000 a year in rates have had to pay that price for land, and all that money escapes local rating. A rate of 4s. in the £ upon the money paid for
land in Liverpool would lift the whole of the burden of the local rates from the shoulders of the people of Liverpool.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who moved this Amendment, is so obsessed by his ideas about the taxation of unoccupied land that he loses no opportunity of talking about that subject in the House, no matter whether that particular subject is really relevant or not. On this occasion, that subject does not happen to be relevant, and I desire to explain to the Committee why that is so. I think that fact is agreed and is admitted even by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. It has already been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) that land which is unoccupied is not rated as long as it is unoccupied, and now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says:"Here you are making legal what is now merely only a practice, and you are exempting this particular class from rating. "The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement was that under this Clause we are exempting legally from rating land which is unoccupied. May I say that he is mistaken in that assumption, and he cannot have looked up what agricultural land means as used in this particular case. This Bill has to be read together with the Eating and Valuation Act of 1925 and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928. In the latter Act, there is a definition of agricultural land. The actual words are:
'Agricultural land' means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only, land used for a plantation or a wood.
Therefore, in order to be agricultural land within the meaning of this Clause the land must be used for agricultural purposes, and, when it is not so used and is in fact unoccupied, it is no longer agricultural land, and does not come under this Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it liable to be rated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an entirely different point. It is not rated now if it is unoccupied. It may come
back into the valuation list if occupied for some other purpose, and it would then be rated. The purpose of this Amendment is not to bring in for derating something which is not now derated, but to limit it to land used as agricultural land, and that is done already.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman accepts the exemption which has gone on up to now and allows it to go on, but he makes no effort to distinguish between agricultural land and land which is not being used.

Mr. SEXTON: I referred to land required for the building of houses.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Land which is being used for the building of houses is not agricultural land, and does not come under this Clause. We are now dealing with the de-rating of agricultural land, and it is not the case that this Clause makes any difference with regard to unoccupied land which is not agricultural land. The only effect of accepting this Amendment would be to leave unoccupied land exactly where it is, and it would not be affected in any way. All the Amendment would do would be to limit the relief to agricultural land which is cultivated or grazed. The only difference between that and the definition in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928 is that that definition includes woodland, and the one single practical effect of the Amendment would be that we should exclude the de-rating of woodlands.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER: I wish to ask the Minister a question in view of the definition that he has given. In the past, as he is aware, cemeteries have been classified as agricultural land for the purpose of assessment, and whether it is desirable or not to permit the rich cemetery companies of London to escape rating, does the right hon. Gentleman opposite consider a cemetery as being cultivated land?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Here we are dealing with the words of the Bill, and of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of last year, and any derating that takes place in consequence of those two Measures can only take place in accordance with those two
Measures. The definition of "agricultural land" in the Act of last year does not include cemeteries.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask whether it is not a fact that, further than that, an attempt to include cemeteries under that definition was expressly excluded by this House?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether land which is exclusively used for sporting purposes is exempt under the Bill or not? I believe that there are large quantities of land in various parts of the country from which even sheep have been excluded. Is that land excluded? I understand that this Amendment would exclude from the benefit of the Act land used exclusively for shooting?

Miss LAWRENCE: This Clause says that agricultural land shall be de-rated, and so forth. There is no definition of "agricultural land" in this Bill and there is no reference to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act in this Clause in that respect.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Clause 67.

Miss LAWRENCE: It says:
The 'principal Act' has the same meaning.
It does not deal with the definition of the word "agriculture." This is to be construed with the Rating and Valuation Act. Yes, but construing with the Rating and Valuation Act does not import into this Measure all that it means. To make the thing watertight, I submit that you want a reference to the definition in the Measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When it says that one Act is to be construed with another, it means that we are referring in this Measure to an Act where there is a definition.

Mr. BROMLEY: There is a phrase in this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have skipped somewhat. He took the words from the Act of last year when he said that "agricultural land" means any land used as arable, meadow or pasture, etc., or as a plantation. A plantation may be a pheasant cover or a cover for foxes, or it may be anything which is certainly not agricultural land. I gather—it may be wrongly—that the Government have
set out in this De-rating Bill, in so far as it applies to agricultural land, to relieve from rates the farming community, on the supposition that it was going to make for the cheapening of the products of the farmer and, secondly, foodstuffs; but if wrapped in that laudable intention is the release from taxation of plantations which are used for the cover of something to be shot at in the name of sport, then it is going much further than the public are told from the Front Bench or from any other Government exponent of the Measure. If the Government were really desirous only of exempting from rating agricultural land which produces food, or something to wear or of use to the community, then they would be certainly willing to make what is now designated as agricultural land, but which is really a plantation for sporting purposes, pay its quota towards the upkeep of the nation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not be prepared to accept an Amendment which in no way infringes on the stated desires of the Government and yet remedies an injustice? It is all very well to say that these people are already exempted. I do not think it is at all an argument that because a thief has been getting away with some of the nation's property for so long, the nation has no right to bring him to boot. That is a very poor argument, and if in the course of this Bill an Amendment is brought forward which may impinge on some interest of sporting rights, and so forth, this Committee; ought to take notice of it, especially when it cannot be said to impinge on the desire of the Government in their Bill.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: After what has just been said by the hon. Member opposite, I would point out that this Bill is a Derating Bill and not a Rating Bill, and if he wishes to bring in fresh hereditaments to be rated, he must bring them in in some other Bill, and not this one. That is the short answer. As to the other point he made about sporting rights, those rights are not dealt with. Those who indulge in that kind of sport will have to pay the same rates that they have paid hitherto. In fact, I go further, and I believe I am right in this, that the only woodlands exempted are not woodlands used for purposes of amenity or sport at all, but only those woodlands which are used for the sale of underwood. In the county of Sussex there are farms
with small woods where, in the course of husbandry, the wood is cut and sold for firewood or other purposes. It is those that are exempted, and woods for amenity are not dealt with at all.

Mr. BROMLEY: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to assist me in this, may I suggest to him, in all courtesy, that he knows as well as I do that in certain of these covers which are now coming within this category there is certainly timber taken from them, but their only purpose, in fact, is for the preservation of game?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If those woods are let to a tenant for sporting rights they become rateable as sporting rights, but if the occupier of land uses his own land as a farm and also for shooting purposes, those sporting rights are not rateable now. This Bill makes no alteration whatever in the incidence of rates on such sporting rights.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the only other Amendment in order on this Clause is the last one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), in page 45, line 29, to leave out Subsection (2).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to move that Amendment. It is really a formal Amendment to preserve upon the rating book the figures, although the subject is not rated. I do not think it is the slightest use moving it, and I suppose, if you will permit me, to speak on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Bill, as I have stated, has been called by a title entirely different from the title of the Bill. It has been called a De-rating Bill, and the Clause which I am now proposing should be rejected is the de-rating Clause in the Bill. From de-rating the Government hope—we all hope—to get an enormous benefit to industry. The productive industries of this country are to be relieved from rates, and thereby the
cost of production will come down, and, presumably, except in the cases of monopolies like the brewing industry, the product will become cheaper and the consumer will benefit. So far, on both sides of the Committee, we are agreed, but the objection to the Government's Measure is that it is partial. You are relieving factories in order to cheapen production and increase employment, but you are leaving that vast body of ratepayers in the retail trade liable to the full burden of the rates, knowing that the arguments you use to relieve the productive industries apply equally as truly to the distributive industries.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this Clause deals with the relief of agricultural land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Amongst other things.

The CHAIRMAN: It is confined to agriculture.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: "Total exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates."

The CHAIRMAN: It is confined to agricultural land and agricultural buildings.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am coming to agricultural land and buildings, because there you have the key to the situation. So far as the Government's De-rating Measure applies to buildings or improvements of any kind created by man, so far we are with them in supporting their proposals, and in urging that they should carry their principles to their logical conclusion. in this Clause they de-rate agricultural land and agricultural buildings, but they leave rated the farmhouse. On the principles which they themselves lay down they should de-rate the farmhouse and the farm buildings, but leave the rates instead upon the land value, which is in an entirely different category from the improvements created by labour on the land. I would put it this way. In so far as the Government are de-rating agricultural improvements, they are cheapening the product of the farm. In so far as they are de-rating the value of agricultural land, they are not cheapening the product of the farm, but they are putting the money which they remit into
the pocket, in the first place, of the tenant farmer, and, certainly on any change of tenancy, into the pocket of the landowner. They are not thereby making the land more valuable, but they are making it more expensive for anyone who wishes to use it. This Measure gives relief amounting to some £4,500,000 in the case of agricultural land. That money will not benefit industry in any way; it will simply be taken out of the taxpayers' pockets and put into an increased price of land. If it would increase the value of the land to the user, nobody would complain, but, if it is merely added to the price of land, it is going to make the position of the unemployed in this country worse than it is at the present moment, because they will have to pay a higher price or a higher rent for the use of the land, which, unrated, will be able to extract a higher price in the market.
I do not know if the Committee follow me. Here you are increasing the price of land; you are making it more difficult for the unemployed man, if he should want an allotment, a small holding, or a house, to get a piece of land, because the price of that land will be more. You are adding, not £4,500,000, but you are adding a capitalisation of, say, 20 years' purchase of £4,500,000, or £90,000,000. You are adding that in one lump sum to the price of British land, so that anyone who wants to buy British land has to pay more for the privilege. That obviously makes the barrier between the unemployed man and the raw material to which he must get access in order to start work, higher and more difficult to get over than it is at the present time, and, therefore, in so far as you de-rate agricultural land, you are actually increasing the compulsion of unemployment in this country. Let me put it the other way. Suppose that, instead of de-rating agricultural land, you imposed a tax or rate upon agricultural land. If that were done, no one would be more determined in his complaints than the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). He would point out at once that we were—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Agricultural land cannot stand any more taxes or rates of any kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Exactly. This is precisely the reverse. If you put a tax
or rate on agricultural land, you injure the landlord, and the price of the land comes down. If you do the reverse—if you take an existing rate or tax off agricultural land—obviously the price goes up and the landlord benefits. You cannot have it both ways. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his idea rightly, objects to the tax or rate on land because it reduces the price and injures the landlord, then, at any rate, he ought to accept the fact that, if you remove an existing rate or tax, to that extent you benefit the landlord. But what I want to point out is not so much this present of £90,000,000 to the landlords, but the injury that it does to employment in the country, and the additional barrier that it sets up between the unemployed man and the raw material which he must get.
Hon. Members will, I think, agree with me that all useful productive work, the only sort of work that we want to increase in this country, must begin by the application of labour in some form to the land. If you bar the primary trades —the building trade, the agricultural industry, the mining and quarrying trades —off from their raw material, they will suffer unemployment, but it is not only the primary trades that will suffer unemployment. If the man in a primary trade cannot start a job, all the other people in the community who complete the processes of manufacture and distribute the goods will lose their chance of a job, too; so that, every time you make land more expensive, you are thereby creating unemployment, not merely among the people who use the land, but among all the other people who will distribute goods or complete processes of manufacture. If you realise that all useful work must begin by the application of labour to the land, you will realise the position which I am always anxious that the House of Commons should understand, namely, that these proposals which I am putting forward to rate or tax land values are intended, not to bring in revenue, but to make land cheap, because everything that we can do to make land cheap, so far from being an injury to the country, is an enormous benefit to the people of the country who depend on production. Anything which will make that essential raw material easier to get at is going to benefit the whole community by increasing production and thereby cheapening goods.
The people who own the land, however, will not have it. Obviously, the people who own the land own the right to keep people unemployed, and every additional power that you put into their hands to keep people unemployed is going to increase the unemployment in the country. By de-rating this land you are putting into those people's hands even greater powers than they possess at the present time to keep people unemployed. You think of it as only affecting a few smallholders or allotment gardeners, but, in effect, it hits the whole of the productive working community in the country. That is why I beg the Committee to reject this Clause—because it exempts agricultural land from rates, enabling the landlords to put up the price of land against anyone who wishes to use it, and, incidentally, because it puts into the pockets of the agricultural landlords of this country £90,000,000. It is a monstrous case of a Government deliberately using the taxpayers' money to benefit their own particular friends. The hon. and learned Member for East Grin-stead is as old as I am, and his memory will go back to the time when Lord George Hamilton, in connection with this precise problem,, justified the remission of a quarter of the rates upon agricultural land on the distinct ground that the Government were justified in helping their friends. Here they are helping them on a much larger scale than they did then—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: That was the tenant farmers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman made that interjection, because he knows as well as I do that the tenant farmers are an admirable screen behind which to fight, but that it is the landlord who at last gets the benefit. Everybody who looks at this question from the point of view of the public interest should reprobate and check any attempt on the part of the Government to select a certain body of people in the country for direct benefit at the expense of the vast mass of the people of the country. When it is a question of a subsidy to the coal industry, Members on all sides say that we cannot have the community as a whole contributing £20,000,000 to the coal industry in this country. We are all
agreed upon that. Why are we not equally agreed on this question of contributing £4,500,000 a year, or £90,000,000 in all, to a class in the country who are now prosperous, and who, by the revolution in transport which is going on, are being made more and more prosperous as their land rises day by day and year by year? Here you are benefiting one class of the community at the expense of the whole, and here you have a Government which is content to go to the country having benefited their friends at the expense of the rest of the country.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is incorrigible. I. would, however, just remind him of a few things, though with no hope of changing his opinions. I would point out, first of all, that every argument that he has used on this Clause is equally applicable to the whole of the de-rating proposals in the Bill. Every argument that he has used, if true, would apply equally to business premises, and, according to him, the rents of those premises will go up if this Bill is passed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very sorry if the hon. and learned Member is under that impression. Any rates levied upon the result of human labour applied to the land pass on to the consumer—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I give to the hon. and learned Gentleman the ordinary view of political economists on this matter? I thought it was recognised on all sides of the Committee. For instance, Thorold Rogers says:
The power of transferring a tax from the person who actually pays it to some other person varies with the object taxed. A tax on rent cannot be transferred. A tax on commodities is always transferred to the consumer.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Part of the cost of the products of the farm is the rent and the rates that farmers have hitherto paid. Part of the cost of goods in industry is the rent and rates on the hereditaments where those goods are produced. Both kinds of products, whether produced on the farm or in industrial hereditaments, have to be sold in competition in the open market, and the whole of the argument which the right
hon. Gentleman has addressed to this Clause dealing with agricultural hereditaments equally applies to industrial hereditaments. The right hon. Gentleman is going down to the principle of the Bill. The House, however, passed the Second Reading by an enormous majority, and, as regards agricultural land, the tenant farmer has suffered, and the owner of land has suffered, quite as much as, and I personally think more than, the occupiers of the vast majority of the industrial hereditaments dealt with in this Bill.
A further point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that all these rates must go back into the landlord's pocket- I wish the right hon. Gentleman would remove himself from the world of theory and come down to actual practice. He has referred to the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. We have had 32 years' experience of that Act. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the first Act which reduced the assessment of agricultural land to one-half of its annual value. Has the right hon. Gentleman's party ever attempted to repeal that Act? Has the Liberal party ever attempted to repeal that Act? Would the right hon. Gentleman say now that, if by any misfortune his party got into office, they would repeal that Act? Perhaps he would let the agricultural industry of this country know if that is the intention of his party. He knows perfectly well that there are figures and facts which show the amount realised under Schedule A. I have not the figures before me, because this matter has been raised unexpectedly to-day so far as I am concerned, but after the Act of 1896 there was no increase such as the right hon. Gentleman foretells, nor is it the fact that anything has gone into the landowner's pocket. The rates were further reduced in 1923, when the assessment of agricultural land was put at one quarter of its value instead of one-half. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that rents have gone up in the last five years?

Mr. RILEY: Certainly.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: On what authority does the hon. Member make that statement?

Mr. RILEY: The Farmers' Union.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Where are there any statistics or figures to show that rents are higher to-day than they were in 1923? I could produce facts and figures to show that they have diminished, rather than increased. I think this de-rating is a substantial advantage to an industry which is in a very perilous position. It represents about £5,000,000 of money which is going to the producers of corn and beef and mutton and the products of the farm which will somewhat lessen the cost of their production and will do something to meet the competition that we have from abroad, for the foreigner knows that this country is the best market in the world.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) in rebuking the right hon. Gentleman for going too far in one way, has himself gone too far the other. I do not think anyone would controvert his major proposition, but surely he would agree that in innumerable instances where tenancies have been broken, the rent has been put up to individual farmers. I have heard of a case to-day where a break has taken place and the rent has been increased from 21s. 6d. to 27s. I will not re-argue the general question, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman rebukes the right hon. Gentleman he himself falls into the same error if he leads the Committee and the country to believe that it is not the case that, when tenancies are broken and things are favourable, rents are not increased. It is the intention of this Clause to help the producer of agricultural land, so that by de-rating he may be able to employ more people and produce more food. I regret that it has not been possible to get a legal statement in the Clause, so that, as far as the law can make it so, the relief shall really go to the hard-pressed tenant farmer. In another part of the Bill, an attempt is made to do this. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 says:
The relief to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments granted by this Act shall not he taken into account by an arbitrator in determining for the purposes of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.
If that is true in cases of arbitration to determine rent, surely it is equally true
with regard to the price of land at the breaking of a tenancy. I would ask the Minister to consider between now and Report if it is not possible to have some declaratory form of words, such as is contained in Schedule 10, to ensure what we all desire, that if relief is given it shall go to those who really want it, who will make use of it to increase agricultural produce, so that the House may know, before it passes the Bill, that the relief will go to the tenant, and that the de-rating shall not be taken into consideration when the owner seeks to make a new lease. It is a very substantial point, and, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there is a good deal of feeling in rural England, as well as in the landward parts of Scotland, that if relief is to be given from public sources it ought to go, not to the landowner, but to the man who is really the producer, whether a smallholder or a tenant farmer.

Mr. RILEY: I want to emphasise the point the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has just made. There was such a provision in the Corn Production Act of 1917, and, unless the Government are prepared to insert some definite declaration to the effect that the relief intended for the tenant shall not be taken into account in renewing tenancies and fixing new terms, it will inevitably go to the owner. That argument has been traversed by one or two hon. Members opposite to-day. Probably no one would say that existing tenants generally will be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Bill, but all the evidence goes to show that, once tenancies are terminated, what is given passes straight away, not to the future tenant, but to the owner. I saw a paragraph in the "Manchester Guardian" three weeks ago with regard to the sale of a small holding in Cheshire, for which no less than £98 per acre was realised, an altogether unparalleled price. The only reason given was the advantage to be conferred by this Bill. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman that what applies to agricultural occupancies will apply to all kinds of tenancies, and in urban industrial premises the same thing is likely to occur where the occupier is not the owner. The people who will gain in the long run are those who own the premises. It is obvious that the occupying owner of a
farm gains. He is relieved of the remainder of the rates, and he is under no liability to an increase of rent, whereas, if he sells, he realises.
The same, of course, applies to all kinds of tenancies where the occupier is the owner. He gets the benefit. If he is subject to a terminating of the tenancy, the owner is in a position to say at the end of the term: "You have an advantage that you did not have before, and you must pay more rent." The hon. and learned Gentleman questions whether these things are taking place. I was speaking to a farmer in Anglesey a fortnight ago, and he told me it has been the custom there for several years, owing to bad times, to have regular reductions in rent. Already the owners have intimated that for next year there is to be no reduction, because of the advantage of the relief of rates. It is up to the Government, if they really mean what they say, that they want this relief to go to the producing occupier, to have some provision that secures that benefit.

Mr. MORRIS: If this Clause stood by itself unrelated to other parts of the Bill, or to other Acts on the Statute Book, there could be no question that it would benefit the farmers, but, if you examine it more closely, it seeks to do two things. It de-rates agricultural land, and it de-rates agricultural buildings, and those two classes must be kept separately in mind, because the provisions applying to both already on the Statute Book are totally different, and the results of the Clause will be different. Agricultural land is de-rated already under the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1896 and 1923. Under the Act of 1923, 25 per cent. of the land is de-rated and 50 per cent. under the Act of 1896. This Bill adds the other 25 per cent., giving complete de-rating. The effect, so far as local authorities ate concerned, is set out in the Memorandum. It shows that £1,320,000 is paid in respect of the deficiency to local authorities under the Act of 1896 and a further £3,000,000 is paid in respect of the deficiency under the Act of 1923, making a total of £4,720,000 paid by the Treasury. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health estimated that the total rates on agricultural land throughout the country were some £12,000,000. If the
whole deficiency were made up to local authorities, they would be entitled to £9,000,000, but all they get is £4,720,000, and there remains a deficiency of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000. That has to be borne by the ratepayers in rural areas, and the additional rate in my division amounts to 1s. 7d. in the £. It is not entirely met, and this Bill does not provide for that deficiency.
We have been told over and over again that the whole of agricultural land and buildings has been de-rated, and the inference we are allowed to draw from that is that the local rating authorities will get the full benefit of the £12,000,000, but when we turn to the Bill that is not the case at all. It is true that in the Twelfth Schedule, the Acts of 1896 and 1923 are set down as being repealed. This is what happens. The losses of the local authority are to be made up under the Bill under two headings, namely, the losses of rates to the local authorities and the losses of grants to the local authorities. Clearly if under this Clause you de-rate the whole of agricultural land, the losses in respect of the land will fall into two categories. There will be losses in respect of the land de-rated under this Clause—the 25 per cent.—and the losses with regard to the existing 75 per cent. de-rated under the other two Acts will be losses in respect of grants. The losses in respect of grants will be £4,720,000. That sum will still have to be made good. It will be a stabilised figure. Notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1896, under the Schedule to this Bill, the provision will still remain operative, because losses of grants and losses of rates are going to be payable by the Treasury. The. losses in respect of 75 per cent. under the two previous Acts will be losses of grants and not losses of rates at all.
In answer to a question some time ago, the Minister said that the subsidy to be provided by the Treasury would be £4,000,000 to meet the deficiency presumably under this Bill, although his words did not clearly indicate it. This would mean that the grant paid by the Treasury would be £4,720,000, plus another £4,000,000, making a total of £8,720,000. That is in respect of both land and buildings. Take the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in respect of the build-
ings. This would mean an additional £1,000,000 on the rates and would bring the total up to £13,000,000. I deduct £8,000,000, and it leaves a deficiency somewhere in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. I make that calculation on the assumption that the assessments remain as they are to-day. But they are not going to remain as they are to-day. They are going up as a result of the increased deficiency. That is my point with regard to land.
I come to agricultural buildings. This Clause purports to de-rate the whole of agricultural buildings. What is going to be the net result? If the agricultural buildings were being de-rated for the first time, I have no doubt that under this Bill the deficiency would be made good. But when one examines the existing position he finds that under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, agricultural lands are de-rated already to the extent of 75 per cent. Losses will fall on the local authorities from the 1st April of this year. This Bill provides for making good those losses. In order to ascertain what is the loss of rates, the local authority will have to certify, in the first place, the unreduced rateable value of the area, and, in the second place, the reduced rateable value, and then take the difference between those two and consider the proportionate relationship between them. What will be the result. Taking the Act of 1925 as being in force, the 75 per cent. will have been de-rated on the 1st April. If it had not been in force, clearly the local authority could have put down as the rateable value of the area the total assessment of the agricultural buildings, but, the Bating and Valuation Act being in force from the 1st April, it will only be able to put 25 per cent. of that sum as representing the unreduced value of the area, and therefore the whole loss of the 75 per cent. will fall on the local authority and will have to be borne by the ratepayers—the farmer and the other ratepayers alike. This is going to be the result. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health shakes his head.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is quite true.

Mr. MORRIS: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is quite right. What
is the result? The farmhouse and the cottages, if any, are to be subject to a rate. Furthermore, at the present moment the new assessments are continuing under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and invariably these assessments are being increased. It is the common experience. Assessments are going up by 10 per cent., in some cases by 30 per cent. and in others by as much as 50 per cent. I notice that in some cases local authorities are recommending —I dare say quite naturally—that the farmer ought to have his land and buildings assessed as high as possible, because he is going to have them totally de-rated. The recommendation is made on the assumption that the local authority is going to get more money out of the Treasury, but actually the exact opposite will be the case. Obviously, the higher the assessment the greater will be the deficiency, and the greater the deficiency the higher the additional rate must be in order to meet it, and that rate will fall upon the farmer and upon everyone else in a rural area. That would be the result of this Clause, in its present form, and of the Bill. I should vote for this Clause as it stands if it were unrelated to other parts of the Bill and I had an assurance that the deficiency was going to be made good. If this deficiency, and probably a greater deficiency, is going to fall on the rural ratepayers, I shall be compelled to vote against the Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: The Government welcome the Amendment which has been moved by the right and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It seeks to leave out of the Bill the total exemption from rates of agricultural land and buildings. They welcome it, because they hope that it will afford an opportunity for a Division in the Committee, when we shall -see exactly where everybody stands in relation to this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that no Amendment has been moved. The Clause has to be put in any case.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry, but I was misled by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. In any event, I hope that we shall have an opportunity of dividing on
this question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) made a very interesting speech in which he recalled to the Committee many of the facts in connection with the previous history of the partial exemption of agricultural land. A good many of the facts which he has put before the Committee are quite true and have been pointed out on a previous occasion. His last point in relation to farm buildings dealt with a proposal which, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend, has already been put on the Statute Book. That has little or no relation to the particular matter we have to consider at the present time. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party can ride off on an issue of that kind. What we have to decide this afternoon is whether or not agricultural land and buildings should be totally exempted from rates. I am very interested to observe exactly what hon. Members who belong to the party of the hon. Member for Cardigan are going to do in regard to this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and Sir Herbert Samuel, are still going up and down the country, not using the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but saying that to give this relief is wholly? wrong, and that it is simply a dole and putting money into the hands of the landlords. These statements are still being made, but no Member of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, during the course of these Debates, has got up and said so. Therefore, we are having one hon. Member after another, as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), saying that they are not quite certain about this matter.

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman is not showing his usual fairness. He knows perfectly well that this issue was decided, as far as classification was concerned, in July of last year and that I voted with him on the matter. He knows that, and therefore he is quite unfair in trying to put that point.

Sir K. WOOD: The rebellion and the division in the Liberal party is growing more and more plain. I thought that of all Members the hon. Member for Leith would have have been the first to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. Now, apparently, he is not ashamed to differ alto-
gether from the policy of the leaders of his party and has actually voted against them.

Mr. BROWN: The whole party so voted, and you know it.

Sir K. WOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs reads this, he will, no doubt, cause an inquiry to be made. At any rate, this is simply the issue, and it is no good the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan raising a lot of points which do not affect the particular matter now before the Committee. The issue is a perfectly plain one and was put quite fairly by hon. Gentlemen opposite belonging to the Socialist party. They say, quite candidly, that they are opposed to it and believe that it is putting money into the wrong pockets. They go along theorising as they have done for the last few years and ignoring altogether the practical effects of what has followed from partial exemption in relation to agriculture. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme still prefers to take this course and not to look round and see what is happening in regard to partial exemption in this respect. Everyone knows that none of the things which hon. Gentlemen opposite' said would happen have happened in connection with the partial exemption of agricultural land. Rents have not gone up. They still prefer to adopt their old policy, their retrograde policy, of ignoring what is going on around them and declining to give some relief to an industry which very badly wants it at the present time. I hope that agriculturists and farmers who are asking for this relief will note what the Socialist party are doing to-night and scrutinise very carefully the Division list so far as this matter is concerned.

5.0 p.m.

Miss LAWRENCE: I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with the utmost possible pleasure, but, when he told us that he could show that rents had not gone up, I think he was rather more bold in his speech than he is usually. I want to speak about this Clause from the point of view of agriculturists. If you read it, the Clause seems to say that no person shall pay rates in respect of agricultural land. Many innocent Members, and, I believe, even some Ministers, have been to the
farmer to tell him that he will be relieved of all rates in the future. That is not true. If you look at the definition of rates in the various Acts, you will see that the heaviest rate, the most unjustifiable rate, the rate which is doing more damage to agriculture in many counties than any other single cause, is left. I refer, of course, to the Drainage Bate.
The drainage rates in agriculture have been condemned a great number of times. What the Government are doing is only, in Clause 61, putting the drainage rates off the land on to the proprietor. I am assured by a very important town clerk that, as far as buildings are concerned, the provisions in Clause 61 mean that we shall leave the larger buildings where they are and increase the tribute from the smaller buildings. That is a point which may have escaped the Minister. A house of £10 rental which is assessed for rates at £6 is assessed at £7 10s. under Schedule A for Income Tax. In the same way, where a £15 house is assessed at £9 for rates it is assessed at £11 5s. under Schedule A. Therefore, the small houses will have to pay more. That is a detail. My point is, that the one rate which has been condemned by Royal Commission after Royal Commission is the drainage rate. The Royal Commission on Agriculture said that in many instances land is burdened with a drainage rate so heavy as to cripple the resources of the holders. The Royal Commission give horrible instances of the effect of the drainage rate. They give instances where the drainage rate is as much as £2 per acre, and other instances where the drainage rate is so high as to make the land unsaleable.
If ever there was an inequitable tribute levied on any class of persons, that tribute is the drainage rate in the Fen country. I cannot understand why this local question of most burning importance has been overlooked by the hon. Members for Huntingdon, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Soke of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely. The most casual person cannot speak to a Fen man without realising with what rage the drainage rate is regarded. In the Fens the drainage rate is resented by a class of people of an especially manly spirit, whose ancestors, under Hereward the Wake, were the last people to defend our country against a foreign invader.
These people have habitually resisted the drainage rate. So cruel is this imposition that the people in those districts habitually refuse to pay it. This question is of importance also in Somerset, Wiltshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire, and there are also flooded districts in Oxfordshire and Berkshire. The Royal Commission points out that the burden of the drainage rate is an indefensible burden, that it ruins a great many agricultural occupiers and that in many eases it cannot be collected.
While the Government the quite willing to help the farmers who have good, dry land and whose rates are, perhaps, 6s. or 7s., they leave untouched the wretched people to whom I have referred who are paying rates in some cases so high that the land has lost all value. If this Clause is to be passed we shall press to have the drainage rate included as the most burdensome. We shall move to have an Amendment of the definition of rate so as to bring in all the rates levied by the Commissioners of Sewers, Elective and Special Drainage Authorities, and those under four special Acts. We shall vote against Clause 61 and we intend to move that the drainage authorities shall be refunded the money they lose by the abolition of the drainage rate as are the counties and towns. We say that, because we believe that if there ever was a rate which is killing people's industry it is the drainage rate in agriculture. If the Committee pass this Clause we shall endeavour to ensure that drainage rates are abolished and that an equivalent amount shall be refunded to the drainage authorities. The whole business of local drainage needs remodelling, but that cannot be done under the Title of this Bill. What we propose will, at any rate, relieve the people for whom I have been pleading, and will give a subsequent Ministry an opportunity, in a clean field, to deal with one of the worst forms of rating in local government.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I should like to draw attention to a statement made and the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) in regard to the effect of the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1896 and 1923. It has been assumed that because there was no increase in rent after the passing of those Acts, the benefit went to the tenant farmer and not to the land-
lord. I take strong exception to any such statement. If hon. Members will recollect the position of agriculture in 1896, they will remember that there was an outcry for reduction of rents from all sides, and relief was given in the Act, but in many cases it prevented the reduction of rents which otherwise would have had to be given. Just to the extent that that protected landlords from the necessity of granting any reduction of rent, so it as surely went into their pockets as if it had meant an increase in rent. The same thing happened in 1923. There was an outcry for a reduction of rent at that time, and further relief was given to agriculture by Parliament, and that just as certainly benefited the landlord by saving him from giving a reduction of rent as if it had meant an increase in rent. The statement that has been made so often from the Government benches that the fact that there was no increase in rent after the passing of the Acts of 1896 and 1923 is a proof that the benefit went into the pockets of the tenant farmer, is a statement which ought not to be accepted without question.
Like other hon. Members, I have had instances brought to my notice where, during the past two or three months, when a tenant has applied for or taken a farm, he has been met with the statement: "Have you forgotten that after next year there will be no rates to pay!" In one particular case, a farmer bid the old rent, and the land agent, in my judgment very foolishly, said to the prospective tenant: "You will have to bid more rent or you will not be the tenant." "But I bid the old rent," said the farmer. "This is no time for asking for an increase in rent." The agent replied: "Have you forgotten that there will be no rates after next year?" That farm was let for £20 a year more than it was let for to the old tenant. That is a proof that the benefit is not always finding its way into the pockets of the occupier of the land. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider, between now and the Report stage, the introduction of some such Amendment as the one referred to by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in the ninth paragraph of the Tenth Schedule, to ensure that the benefit shall go to the tenant farmer? I believe it is the intention of the Minister concerned that the tenant farmer shall get the benefit. In
his reply to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), the right hon. Gentleman failed entirely to deal with the points raised, which were points of great interest. Under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, everybody connected with agriculture recognised that a great mistake was made, and members of the present Government recognised it, because when they found it necessary to give further relief to agriculture under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1923, the mistake of giving a fixed Exchequer grant was remedied, and the amount contributed by the Exchequer was not based on the assessment in force in that year, but was 25 per cent. of the assessments on agricultural land, the amount being determined by half-yearly ascertainments.
I had hoped that the mistake made in 1896 would have been put right and that under this new Bill a sum equal to the full amount of the rates on agricultural land and buildings in the standard year would have been the Exchequer contribution, instead of which I find that the old grievance will be perpetuated, as the Exchequer grant will only be a sum equal to the 25 per cent. now being paid by occupiers of land, plus the grants given under the Agricultural Bates Acts of 1893 and 1923. If the contribution from the National Exchequer is not going to to based on that figure it will not be that relief to agriculture which is so often assumed when the Bill is explained to audiences of farmers in rural areas. I have been trying to find out whether the Government have made provision for making a contribution from the National Exchequer to meet the relief that is to be given on 1st April on farm buildings. The 75 per cent. relief which is now given on agricultural land is to be extended to agricultural buildings, but I cannot find that there is any contribution from the National Exchequer to meet the Concession that has been given. That concession is given to the occupier of the buildings, but it is given to him by the people in the rating area, who have to make good the amount that will be lost. If the National Exchequer made a contribution to the relief that was given under the 1923 Act, on land, how is it that there was not provision made for the same relief from the Exchequer to be given to agriculture when that relief was applied to agricultural buildings? I am
strongly of opinion that the effect will be as has been set out by the hon. Member for Cardigan, and I hope that before the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have some definite assurance from the Government that these very important points affecting the occupiers of land in agricultural areas have been considered and that adequate safeguards will be provided.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY and Captain WALLACE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

CLAUSE 55.—(Relief from rates in respect of industrial and freight-transport hereditaments.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 45, line 36, to leave out the words "The rateable value of."
This is the first of a series of seven Amendments which are designed to raise the issue of the apportionment of the relief to various industries. On the Classification Bill last year I moved an Amendment to exclude all industries which pay more than 7 per cent. dividend on their actual capital and I was told by the Minister in reply that it was a very unscientific proposal. I hope I have met that point by the series of Amendments my friends and I have put down by which we desire to provide for an annual classification of industries by the Board of Trade. We desire to classify them in three groups. First, those which pay less than 5 per cent. dividend on their capital we propose should have three-quarters relief as provided for in the Bill. The second classification is that where an industry is paying between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. it shall have 50 per cent. relief instead of 75 per cent., and the third category is that those which pay over 10 per cent. should get one-quarter relief; that is 25 per cent. That would be the effect of the Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.
There can be no doubt that the country does not desire that any of the money raised by the Petrol Duty, or any other impositions, should go to firms who do
not want it, who ought not to have it, and who will not provide one extra job for one extra man if they receive it. Even if our proposals are no more scientific than the suggestion put forward last year they are put down with the firm belief that if money is to be given in order to meet the needs of necessitous areas, to increase the competitive power of our industries, then the whole of that money should go to produce more employment and to the relief of necessitous areas. The Minister of Health has admitted that a large proportion of the £24,000,000 for de-rating in England and Wales will go to people who are prosperous, and I observe with great satisfaction that certain hon. Members opposite regard some groups of industries, such as brewing and tobacco, from the point of view which I am putting forward now. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter. If we are to spend £24,000,000 in de-rating with the intention of helping the necessitous areas, if we are to spend £24,000,000 in order to increase productive employment, then we think that the whole of that money should go where these results will most certainly accrue. In our judgment, that would not be the case under the Bill as it is drafted.
It has been a rather difficult task to draft Amendments to meet this point, and although the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside an earlier Amendment as being unscientific, I hope that this time he will meet us. The right hon. Gentleman frequently uses the Yellow Book when addressing meetings in the country —I prefer to call it the Golden Book— in support of his Bill. I venture now to call his attention to a particular passage in that book. He will find it on page 434. It says:
Not only are rates heavy; their burden is spread most unequally between different industries and districts. The depression of the exporting industries during the last few years has led to abnormally heavy expenditure on poor relief, and correspondingly heavy rates in those districts where the exporting industries are centred. Thus the very industries which are the worst hit and have the greatest difficulties to overcome are by reason of the vicious incidence of rating subjected to the heaviest deterrents. In just those districts where there is the most unemployment, and where it is therefore most desirable that new industries
should be established, a special discouragement is extended to any manufacturer who is looking out for a site for a new works.
When the right hon. Gentleman next quotes from what he calk the Yellow Book, but which I call the Golden Book, perhaps he will remember that passage. The reason why those who took part in that inquiry turned down the method of giving a direct subsidy to industry, as is done under this Bill, was because they foresaw the anomalies which would exist; and one anomaly is that you are undoubtedly pretending that you are going to give new money from the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well that on balance, apart from such money as is raised from the taxation of oils, he will not lose but gain by these proposals. If the prosperous industries get, as they will under the Bill as it is drafted at present, a full measure of relief, all that will happen in hundreds of cases is that this money will increase their profits and, therefore, increase the receipts of the Treasury under Schedule A of the Income Tax. May I ask if the Minister of Health has inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of what he expects-to receive by way of additional Income Tax under the de-rating proposals from prosperous firms? I think the Committee is entitled to ask whether any such estimate has been made. There are many other things I should like to say, but I will not trouble the Committee any further. I am quite sure that if the form of words in the Amendment is not suitable, the right hon. Gentleman will do the best thing for his measure and his future reputation outside this House if he meets the principle which is intended to be covered by the series of seven Amendments which my friends and I have put on the Order Paper.

Sir K. WOOD: There does not appear to be a chorus of approval in favour of the proposal. It is a very curious Amendment and hardly does justice, I think, to the undoubted ability of my hon. Friend. I noticed that he moved it with some hesitation. He said that it might possibly have been drafted better—

Mr. BROWN: I was referring to the series of seven Amendments. They are of a complicated character and took many
hours fro work out. The Parliamentary Secretary is not treating the House with his usual fairness.

Sir K. WOOD: As a matter of fact, I was referring to all the seven Amendments put down by the hon. Member and his friends, and I cannot conceive that he can have given many hours' consideration to them. A short examination will convince him that it would be very undesirable to accept some of them. The Clause we are now discussing enables productive industry to be relieved of three-quarters of its rates. The hon. Member now comes forward with what, I suppose, is the Liberal plan. He has referred to the Yellow Book as the Golden Book—paid for, I presume, by Lloyd George gold. Now we have the Liberal plan for productive industry. What is it? The hon. Member says that the Board of Trade must survey the whole field of industry and must classify industries. He adopts a most extraordinary classification, and although the officials at the Board of Trade are very capable, I think they will find it very difficult indeed to carry out the proposal. They have to find out what is the capital and the interest on the capital of certain industries in the country. I do not think the hon. Member can have given much study to this matter. He must know how difficult it is to arrive at what is the capital and the profits earned on specific undertakings, but the Liberal party this afternoon is asking the Board of Trade to decide what is the capital and what are the earnings of all industries. That is going beyond the borders of the Yellow Book itself. But, after the Board of Trade has divided industries into a, b, and c, it is proposed by the series of Amendments put forward on behalf of the Liberal party to include in category b, payments to industries which are included in category c.
I do not want to speak disrespectfully of the hon. Member but, really, this Amendment is impracticable and impossible, and I do not think any hon. Member will really desire to support it. The simple fact is that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the plan of the Government. I suggest to him that he should content himself with his opposition to the Government's proposal, for he is on much firmer ground there than in putting forward any proposals of his
own. We shall examine later the Liberal suggestion regarding the formula. It is a proposal very much of the same nature as this one. The answer to all these schemes is that if they are practicable they would stand examination. But the hon. Gentleman is treating this matter as if what was proposed was a dole to industry. The proposal of the Government is to put right what we think is unfair and unjust so far as productive industry is concerned. I say that apart altogether from other criticism which one could direct against such an Amendment as this, which I cannot ask the Committee to accept.

Mr. J. JONES: I am very sorry to find that an hon. Member should move an Amendment of this character. It looks to me as though he were trying to compound a felony, because if a thing is wrong in principle it is wrong in detail. Giving relief to people who are prosperous in proportion to the amount of profit that they are making, seems to me to bo committing the same offence as the hon. Member charges his opponents with. The small thief is just as bad as the big one, and neither has the right to take advantage of the public purse for his own purposes. Later we shall be discussing other Amendments to deal with our old friends, the Forty Thieves. More arguments will be advanced in favour of them. It will be said that because they are making only 5 per cent. profit they can dip into the nation's resources. We are prepared to relieve industry in a different way. We recognise that industries may be depressed, but the depression is a matter of economic circumstances.
The Amendment seems to me to mean this: "If you are not robbing the people too much we are willing to meet you, and to find some public money to relieve you." If a firm is making only 5 per cent. the Liberals say: "You shall have 7.3 per cent. of relief." But who are the people who are to gel; the relief? They are people who have never done any work in the industry—shareholders, Tom, Dick and Harry, who may have invested some of their surplus wealth in an industry about which they know as much as a Connemara pig knows about astronomy. Then we come to those who have made 10 per cent. out of their investments. They are to have a relief of 50 per cent. of their rates; that is 50–50, "You scratch
my back and I will scratch yours." Next we come to those who have made over 50 per cent. on their investments, and they are told, "You can have 25 per cent. of relief." So the merry game goes on. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment should realise that this is compounding a felony. It is against all the principles of the golden Yellow Book. I believe that the Liberal party had the jaundice when they got out that book. Thirty years ago I knew of all that is in it. The book is full of the old commonplaces of the Liberal and Radical party—how to have your eggs without taking the shells off.

The CHAIRMAN: That seems to be far from the proposal before the Committee.

Mr. JONES: This Bill is not the way to deal with the problem of depressed industry. Simply to give to those who do not want help is not a way out of our difficulties. We should not compromise on a matter of principle. The Government are responsible and should find a way out of our present troubles. They have not found a way out. If the Bill is carried out and, if this Amendment were made to it, I do not believe that one man more would be employed in industry. Some of us are opposed tooth and branch to the scheme. [Laughter.] I know I should have said "tooth and nail," but there are more branches than nails about this scheme. The Government are putting the cart before the horse. They are trying to buy over certain industries by a form of indirect bribery.

Mr. E. BROWN: It is most interesting to find the new Coalition between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), especially when the latter puts his objection to the Amendment on the ground of moral philosophy. I shall not pursue him into that realm. When the Bill was drafted we believed that it went the wrong way, but the Bill has passed the Second Beading and we are now committed to it. When the hon. Gentleman claims a wonderful moral value for his own friends, let me say that I have not observed on the Paper any Amendment to exclude the mines or the railways from the benefits of the Bill. I did observe on the last classification pro-
posal an Amendment to leave out agricultural land. I fail to understand the logic which says "Let mines have de-rating because they are depressed. Agriculture is also a distressed industry, but do not let it have relief." Our Amendment and others which appear on the Paper, if incorporated in the Bill, would provide a better way of spending public money and would go to the root of the rating problem. But the Bill has passed its Second Reading and we are here to do the best we can with the money provided by the Bill for the purposes of the Bill.
I will look into the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to overlapping. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in that criticism. Part (b) refers to half of the annual value, but Part (c) to three-quarters. The right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible to carry out our proposal, but he knows quite well that industries are classified by the Board of Trade for the Census of Production, and in my judgment the classification could easily be done for the purpose of determining "profitability." The right hon. Gentleman referred to the intricacy of our proposal, but nothing could be more intricate than the inquiries that were made for the purpose of ascertaining Excess Profits Duty, or, at the present time, the inquiries made regarding Supertax and Income Tax. My proposal is simplicity itself compared with what is done every day by officials of the Treasury and the Board of Trade with regard to industry and taxation.
The Parliamentary Secretary tells me that this Amendment and subsequent Amendments are very curious and illogical. I agree, and they are so for one reason—because the Bill is curious and illogical. When the right hon. Gentleman decided to take a certain method of discriminating between various ratable hereditaments as a basis of giving relief he led not only himself but the Oppositions and the country into a new mass of illogicalities and anomalies which, I predict, will call for six amending Bills in the next ten years. Therefore all the right hon. Gentleman's talk about the lack of logic in the Amendment leaves me cold. If money can be given to relieve industry in order to make an improvement, I
believe the country as a whole will approve of that being done, but I do not believe that the country will approve of any of that money going to firms who will use the money solely to swell their profits and not make one job more for an extra man.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY and Captain WALLACE were named by the CHAIRMAN as Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. FENBY and Major OWEN as Tellers for the Noes.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The CHAIRMAN: As there appears to be some delay in completing this Division, I must ask the Tellers to come to the Table.

Sir G. HENNESSY and Captain WALLACE attended at the Table as Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. FENBY as Teller for the Noes.

Sir G. HENNESSY: As no "No" Teller appeared in the "No" Lobby, the doors have not been opened.

The CHAIRMAN: In that event, I think I must put the Question again.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BRIGGS: I beg to move, in page 45, line 37, after the first word "hereditaments," to insert the words:
(other than hereditaments used for the purposes of a brewery, distillery, or tobacco factory).
I would draw the attention of the Committee to the leading article in our leading newspaper this morning which refers to this Amendment. The "Times" this morning says that this Amendment is in fundamental contradiction to the objectives of the Bill. Of course the main objective referred to is the relief of industry and it is to that point I would address my argument. In moving this Amendment I have no idea whatever of suggesting anything in regard to the profits made by these big breweries. I base my objection to the inclusion of these three trades in this Clause on one ground and on one ground alone, namely, that they do not conform to the main object of this Clause. Clause 55 is one of
the principal Clauses of this Bill, which in many parts of the country is only referred to as the De-rating Bill and which seeks to relieve industry. The reason why these three trades do not conform to the object of the Bill is, in my opinion, because they are in no wise industries which are vital to the life of this country. These three trades are in no way concerned with the great exports of this country, and we must bear in mind that the export trade is one of the first considerations of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. That is shown by the fact that on 1st December, as a preliminary stage, the railway companies were de-rated in respect of certain goods. Of those goods the principal was coal, but the de-rating was not to be passed on to the coal for home consumption. It was solely to be passed on to coal for export overseas— thus showing that the Government had in mind, in introducing this de-rating proposal, the fact that it was to assist those industries which were vital to the life of the country and that no other kind of industry was meant.
I would recall to the Committee a statement made by the Minister of Health during the Second Beading Debate on this Bill, which I am quite prepared to accept as a definition of the object of this Clause. The Minister said that the purpose which the Government had in view was to stimulate industry. I would ask whether in making that utterance he had in mind the stimulation of the consumption of stimulants in this country, because that is all that can be meant by the inclusion of these three trades in Clause 55. The suggestion has been made that if de-rating is to remove an injustice, why should it be limited to one section of trade only? It is argued that if it is to remove; an injustice, it is perfectly legitimate for many other trades, for the distributive and carrying trades, for example, and many other home trades to claim inclusion in the advantages of this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year, exposed the fallacy of that argument. He showed us the great distress occasioned in industry by the heavy burden of local charges. He pointed out that in the coal industry there was a ratio of rates to profits—not to turnover or to capital, but
to profits—of 27 per cent. He pointed out that in the cotton industry—that great industry of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives in this House—the ratio of rates to profits was 23 per cent., and that it was with the intention of removing these heavy burdens that this Clause was introduced.
6.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to complete his analogy by pointing out that the ratio of rates to profits in these three industries of breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories was 2 per cent. Where then is the injustice; where is the hardship? In view of the increased profits which have been made since, if any injustice at all ever existed, that injustice is now even less than it was at that time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that at any rate the advantages of this Clause must reach the consumer—that this £400,000 which he particularly selected must reach the consumer of the beer—and we have had it on high authority to-day that this means, as a matter of fact, 4d. on a 36-gallon barrel. I think it will be a difficult thing for any economic law to operate which will distribute 4d. on 36 gallons of beer. Then we had another authority, the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), speaking in this House before the Adjournment, and saying that it would be an impossibility to pass it on to the consumer; and the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), speaking in his division only the other day, said he did not want it and that it would be an impossibility to pass it on to the consumer. Then we had other authorities. We had that well-known paper, issued in the interests of the licensed victuallers, the "Morning Advertiser," which, in its issue of 18th December, said that the amount was too small to make any alteration in retail prices and that the smallest reduction in the retail price over the counter that could be made would cost the brewers £30,000,000 a year. I suggest that the economic law in this case would entirely fail, and that means, of course, that we are making a mere gift to these three industries, these prosperous trades, these trades which are not vital to the life of this country in any degree.
I am not arguing the point on moral grounds, but I am saying that there is no justification whatever for including these three trades in this Bill. One of the greatest sections of the opposition to this Bill has come from an entirely new group in our political life. The women of this country have unanimously condemned the health Clauses of this Bill, because of their inability to increase the opportunity to develop the two services in which they are interested, namely, maternity and child welfare. [Interruption.] The women of this country say that under this Bill there is no opportunity for the development of these two services. I say that, that being so, on the one hand here is a service which the Minister of Health said, in reply to a question by me some time ago, costs roughly £1,000,000 per annum, and, on the other, as the right hon. Gentleman then said, he himself would be glad of any means of increasing that £1,000,000, but he had no means. Here you have a pool in which is practically another £1,000,000—it is £750,000 at least—to be handed over to these three trades. Therefore, without costing the Chancellor of the Exchequer one penny, because the money is in the pool, you could transfer it from the intended objective of these three trades to these maternity and child welfare services, and you would thereby satisfy the whole of the women of this country.
I fail to see any reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. There is only one thing I can think of, and that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he has got in this Measure a perfect vessel, and that he will not alter one line of it. I suggest that that perfect vessel, which we all acknowledge is an almost perfect vessel. [Interruption.] I support this great Bill, and I say that this almost perfect vessel could be improved and completed if the right hon. Gentleman would let out the foul odours it contains. I ask, in conclusion, is the voice of the people of this country to be entirely ignored? I wonder whether hon. Members have done what I did soon after the White Paper was published. I had a series of meetings in my Division last October, in strong support of this Bill, and at more than one of those meetings, and particularly, I remember, on the first occasion, the question was put up to me: "Why
do you advocate a Bill which permits of taxpayers' money being given to brewers and tobacconists?" The question was perhaps a natural one, but its value lay in this, that that audience, which consisted of 80 per cent. of my own Conservative supporters, before I had time to reply cheered that question as one man. That is the question that every hon. Member on this side will have to face next June, and if this Amendment is not accepted, I do not know how they will answer it. I shall not have need to answer it, nor will any of those who support this Amendment, because they will be able to say: "At any rate, we did our best." What I would ask the Government is that they should take off the Whips to-night. There will be other speakers to follow me, far more capable supporters of the Amendment than I can be, but I would ask the Government to take off the Whips; and as, at that meeting of mine and at many other meetings, you have the true voice of the people, if you take off your Whips to-night, you will have the true voice of this Committee.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope we are going to have some statement from the Minister of Health on this Amendment.

Mr. WITHERS: I wish to support the Amendment. First of all, I should like to say that I do not do so from any prejudice against these estimable people who are mentioned in the Amendment. I am an enthusiastic supporter of beer and tobacco, I hope in moderation. Nor do I support the Amendment because these trades are prosperous. If we were to differentiate between prosperous and distressed trades, we should be doing what is wrong, for we should simply be penalising the people who are able and willing to carry on their business with profit.
The third point I wish to make is that it is impossible to provide for this benefit to pass on to the consumer, for two reasons. First, it would be impossible at this stage to set up the machinery that is to be found in Clause 113—I think it is—applicable to the railway companies; and, secondly, it would be quite impossible to translate the small amount of rates affected into terms of cigarettes and glasses of beer.
Having got rid of those points, I may be asked why I want to differentiate in
the case of these particular trades, and the answer, I think, is this, that these trades do not really come within the ambit of the industrial, productive industries which this Bill is intended to benefit. De-rating, it is said, will facilitate employment and help us in competition in the markets of the world, but is it reasonable to say that if you cannot pass on the benefit, these things can possibly happen? As a matter of fact, these trades are not really industrial trades at all; they are semi-luxury trades, and I do not think they ought to come within the de-rating proposals. I may be asked if it is possible to differentiate against these people and to put them in a class by themselves, and my answer is "Yes." You already do it. You tax the raw material in the case of tobacco factories and you tax the products of the distillers and brewers, and, therefore, there is no possible difficulting in differentiating further.
This question of itself is undoubtedly of importance, and it has an importance also from a different angle altogether. With a new proposal such as de-rating before the public, the man in the street comes to a conclusion in a very matter of fact way. He gets the idea of what the principle is, and he then applies it to various instances. When he applies it to brewers, distillers, and tobacco manufacturers, he is brought face to face with the question, "Is it reasonable in these cases?" and he says, "No, it is absurd." There, of course, he immediately uses the argument of reductio ad absurdum. The danger is that the man in the street applies it to brewers and distillers and tobacco manufacturers and, finding it wrong, thinks the whole thing is wrong. I therefore ask the Government most earnestly, in their own interests, to remove this absurdum in order that there shall be no reductio.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I desire to support the Amendment, and I desire to do so rather on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Withers). Like him, I have no prejudice whatever against the trades which are mentioned in the Amendment. Like him, and like the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs), I am a strong supporter of the general principles of this Bill. If I thought that this Amendment were in any sense hostile, or
one which could not be accepted without prejudice to the general structure of the Bill, I should take no part in supporting it. I have said in this House, and many times outside the House, that I believe that these Measures—the Local Government Bill and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act—constitute a very important instalment of constructive reform which is long overdue. Therefore, I shall strongly oppose anything which is likely to interfere with the general beneficent effect of these Measures.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University that there is nothing in this Amendment which will interfere with the beneficent purposes of the Bill. On the contrary, there is something in the Amendment which will greatly reduce the prejudice against the Bill as a whole. I will make another preliminary confession. I received this morning from, I believe, the United Kingdom Alliance a reprint of an article which was headed "Brewers' Belief Bill." If I had received that article a little sooner, I might have withdrawn my support from this Amendment for the reason that I do not like to be associated, however remotely and unwittingly, with a grotesque and malevolent misrepresentation of the Bill. This Bill taken as a whole is not a brewers' relief Bill, and it is an absurd misrepresentation to apply that description to it.
The very small measure of relief which, under the provisions of the Bill, will go to brewers and distilleries is merely an incidental effect of a much larger scheme, and I wish to separate the incident from the general body of the Bill. In the first place, it is a very small measure of relief. Out of the £35,000,000 odd which it is calculated to give to the relief of industry, only about £400,000 will go to the relief of breweries and distilleries. The brewers themselves, so we have been repeatedly informed, do not want or desire that they should be included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said that this relief could not be translated into a sum which could be handed over to the consumer. I believe that it would work out at about 4d. a barrel of 36 gallons. That, obviously, is much too small a sum, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, to enable the relief to be passed on to the consumer.
The brewers have no desire to be relieved of rates at the expense of the taxpayer.
The real point, as I understand it, of this Amendment is that the inclusion of breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories, so far from being vital to the general structure of the Bill, really violates the principles on which the Bill is constructed, for it is built up on a series of coherent, interdependent and interlocked propositions, into which you cannot fit breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories. In the forefront of these propositions is the haunting problem of unemployment. We have had for six years a vast army of unemployed because our great basic industries are profoundly depressed. Everybody knows that the large factor in depressing them is the cruel and unfair incidence of local rates. This in turn raises the cost of production, and the high cost of production impedes export and handicaps British producers and labour in their competition with the foreigner in the neutral markets. Moreover, the depression in productive industries is responsible for nine-tenths of our unemployment. On which of these interlocked and interdependent principles does the de-rating of breweries react? Not one of the industries of brewing, distilling and tobacco is depressed to-day, and none of them, as far as I know, contribute in any degree to the volume of unemployment. None of these industries is subjected to very heavy rating disabilities. I believe that the total of rates which falls upon breweries is a great deal less than 1 per cent. of the total of the rates. Finally, not one of these industries has to face fierce competition either in the home market or in the markets abroad.
I ask, therefore, on what grounds these industries are to be included in the Bill? I can see only one valid argument in favour of their inclusion. I do see the difficulty of discriminating between one industry and another. It is said that if we exclude breweries, why not artificial silk, and if artificial silk, why not cocoa? There is a very good reason for not excluding cocoa; it is that the best cocoa is produced in the city of York. I frankly admit the force of the argument about the thin end of the wedge. I have always understood that it is difficult, and I believe impossible, to discriminate, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) just now desired to do in the
ambit of one industry, between a prosperous concern and an unprosperous one. To attempt to do that would merely put a premium on the inefficient concern. While admitting that that is impossible, I do not think that that particular objection applies in any degree to the Amendment which we are now discussing. The strongest case for de-rating is in favour of those industries which fulfil all the conditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down. There is a great deal to be said for de-rating those industries which conform to some of the principles which the Chancellor laid down; but I can see no reason for applying the principles of de-rating to industries which conform to none of the principles. It is because I believe that breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories conform to none of these principles that I support the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The last Amendment which we discussed found but little support in the Committee, and I must say that I feel a certain sympathy for the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), first in the fact that he failed to get his party to give him that support in the Lobby which he might reasonably have expected from them, and also because his series of Amendments, though in my view they would have been impracticable in operation, were yet at any rate logical and consistent with the view which he had put before the Committee. The hon. Member opposite—[Interruption.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was objecting to this post mortem. I want the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not showing his usual courtesy. I was about to make a comparison between the Amendment which we have been discussing and the Amendment now before the Committee. The proposal was, in effect, the partial exclusion of certain industries from the benefits of the Bill, and I was saying that, at any rate, the Amendments of the hon. Member for Leith appeared to me to have some logic and consistency about them. He does not regard this part of the Bill in the light in which I regard it. I regard it as rating reform. He regards it as a dole to industry.
Other Members may also regard it in that light. If so, they are perfectly logical in taking up the view that the dole to industry ought not to be given to those industries which do not require it. The object of the hon. Member then was to parcel out his dole in proportion to the need of the industry, if I may put it in that way. I do not think that it is possible to do that, and I am sure it is not possible to do it in the way the hon. Member suggested.
What I cannot see is the logic of hon. Members who have moved or supported the Amendment which is now before the Committee. There does not seem to me to be any principle of any kind. There is plenty of prejudice, but no principle, in the selection of three particular industries for exclusion from the benefits of the reform. I notice that of the three speakers who supported the Amendment, there was no agreement between any two of them as to the motives which prompted them to support it. The hon. Member who moved it, did so because at a meeting in October, before the Bill was printed, and before any explanation had been given by me or anybody else of what the Bill was about to do, a question was put to him which was cheered as one man by an audience which consisted entirely of the hon. Gentleman's supporters. That was enough for him.

Mr. BRIGGS: I would point out to my right hon. Friend that that point came somewhat late in my remarks. I started my remarks by explaining that I moved this Amendment because those three industries do not conform to the principles of the De-rating Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true it came rather late in the hon. Member's remarks, but it seemed to me that it came rather early in the history of his opposition. It is quite true that the arguments which he employed in this Committee were that these trades were prosperous, and that that was the ground on which he was opposing any relief being given to them. That is the same argument as the argument of the hon. Member for Leith, but it has not the same logic or completeness. The hon. Member picked out three prosperous trades. I ask: Why pick out these three prosperous trades when there are many other trades which are equally prosperous in their way, and which, if you
take that line, ought certainly to be included in the Amendment? Then I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). He disclaimed any idea that he was moved by the fact that these trades were prosperous. He said specifically that he was not asking for the exclusion of prosperous trades, and so he had to find another reason, and his reason was that they were semi-luxury trades. I ask him, Why did he pick out these three semi-luxury trades? Are there not other semi-luxury or wholly luxury trades which might have been included in his Amendment? What about gramophones? Are not they luxuries? I could name dozens of other industries which would come under his definition of semi-luxury trades. I see no reason for picking out these three trades except that they are three trades which are likely to appeal to a certain class of electors who have a prejudice against them.
Next I come to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Sir J. Marriott). I must say that I was surprised to find him in this school. He described the Bill in terms of laudation which I could not hope to emulate, and said it was founded on sound and solid principles, and then said he was going to support the Amendment because it appeared to him to violate the essential principles of the Bill. It is a matter of very sincere regret to me to find my hon. Friend, of whom I should not have expected it, had not taken the elementary precaution of examining what are the principles upon which this Bill is founded. If he had done so, he would have seen that this reform, which provides for the de-rating of agriculture and of industry, is not founded on a consideration as to whether articles which are produced here are also produced in other countries, or whether they are better produced in the City of York than in other cities, but that it is founded on the conclusion, to which the Government have come, that industry is unjustly rated to-day, that agriculture is unjustly rated, and that we are demanding from agriculture and from industry a larger contribution to local expenditure than is justified by the benefits which they derive from that expenditure.
Incidentally, we have pointed out that the removal of what we believe to be a
fundamental injustice is going to bring about certain other results. We hope it is going to bring about greater employment, that it is going to bring about a reduction of local charges, and that it is going to give a fresh stimulus to industry which will be generally of benefit to the country. I would go further, and say that it is the fact that certain industries are so depressed to-day and have felt so deeply the burden of the rates upon them that has particularly drawn our attention to their necessities; but that is not the theoretical basis of the Bill. It is based on a much wider principle than that. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York will not forget that, and will not confuse the advantages which may arise out of this reform with what is really the theoretical basis of it. The Committee will see that once you take the view that the present system of rating industry and agriculture is not fair to them, and that you produce this reform, then the exclusion of a particular industry because it is prosperous or because it is a semi-luxury industry is no longer justified. You may say that an industry is too well-off, that it does not pay its proper contribution to national resources, that it ought to be taxed in some further way, or that existing taxation should be increased—those are all matters on which you can make a case without interfering with this Bill, but the particular method of dealing with these particular industries suggested by my hon. Friends does, I put it to them, traverse fundamentally one of the main principles of the Bill, and for that reason it is obviously quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I had put down an Amendment on this point, but I was very glad to allow hon. Members opposite, whose persuasive powers are greater than mine, to move their Amendment. Members on all sides of the Committee will have heard with regret, I think, the decision of the Minister, and after his speech I find myself in another difficulty on this Bill. We are told that the real reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted is that it cuts across the vital principle on which the Bill is based. This Bill is now to be regarded as a measure of rating reform. If that be so, it is worse as a measure of
rating reform than it was as a measure for the assistance of industry. When the scheme was put before the House the justification for it was that it was going to improve the state of trade, it was intended to be a stimulus to trade, and I feel, therefore, that it is competent for hon. Members to point out that as regards certain trades, including breweries and distilleries and tobacco factories, the effect of it will not be to stimulate industry. No one can pretend that the relief which will go to either of the two great industries referred to in the Amendment can stimulate trade, even if it were to increase consumption. It is perfectly obvious that £650,000 a year of public money—£400,000 to the breweries and distilleries, and £250,000 to the tobacco factories—is to be devoted to purposes from which the community will get no return in the way of increased industrial activity. If that be so, the original idea of this Bill is not being carried out.
The sum of £650,000 may not seem large, and the Minister may say that in order to preserve the unity and completeness of his Bill he can have no contracting-out; but it is difficult for him to take that line during, this time of great financial stringency. He is virtually throwing away £650,000. That sum is going to the brewers and distillers, who never asked for it. Only last week an hon. Member of this House stated in public that he did not want this relief, and that his friends in Burton did not want it. As far as I know, the tobacco industry have not asked for it; they do not want it. The relief given will only be an infinitesimal fraction of the profits that industry is making; it will merely go to swell the already substantial profits. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out, the Ministry of Health grants to maternity and welfare services amount to about £1,000,000 a year. a sum which is far below what is necessary to give our local authorities an effective maternity and child welfare scheme. There is room for a considerable expansion of expenditure on that service. If the right hon. Gentleman were to devote this £650,000 to the maternity and child welfare services of the country, instead of damaging them in another direction, as this Bill is going to do, he would increase the amount of work which can be
carried on by those services by over 50 per cent. Comparing these two ways of spending money, it is clearly advantageous to divert £850,000 from these industries into the social services, and particularly to the maternity and child welfare services.
I do not think any Minister is entitled to throw away £650,000 a year, and particularly a Minister who this year has driven local authorities to reduce their expenditure upon the provision of milk, so as to save £12,000. This year he is saving 12,000 miserable pounds by bullying local authorities into curtailing the provision of milk. This year, next year, and every year, 54 times as much as that is to be given to the breweries and distilleries and the tobacco factories. There can be no defence to his disposing of public money in this way when he is curtailing very vital public services. I cannot understand why the Government should not have acceded to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that the arguments from the opposite benches were contradictory. I am not so sure that they were; I think they were supplementary. At any rate, I think they were convincing, and I am driven to the conclusion that the real reason why the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment is that if he did so the whole of his ramshackle scheme would fall to pieces. I think he feels that if we took these two or three industries out of this scheme there would be no logical argument against not taking out many more. Therefore, it is not on the merits of the case, but as self-protection for his scheme, that the right hon. Gentleman has been driven to decline to accept this Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I say, on behalf of my hon. Friends who support this Amendment, how very grateful we are to the hon. Member opposite for having withdrawn his Amendment and allowing us to raise this question. I think the Minister tried to laugh this matter out of court, but the point raised in this Amendment is a very serious one. We are always delighted with his speeches, whether they are directed against us or not, but it struck me that on this occasion his lucid and logical mind was not functioning as usual. I agree with him about the general principle which he
laid down, that industry to-day is unjustly rated, and the point he made would have been quite true if it were also true that every industry in this country started fair. They do not start on the same level. It is the case with the brewing and the tobacco industries that they do not start on the same level as other industries. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) pointed out that not only are the products taxed at the source and a heavy duty paid on those manufactures, but it is true that they cannot sell their produce without a licence. If those conditions applied to gramophones and other luxuries, then there would be a case for bringing them within the ambit of our Amendment. I support this Amendment because the industries dealt with in it are not on the same basis as other industries, and in dealing with them we should bear in mind that differentiation. I know the Minister of Health said that the supporters of the Amendment do not agree as to their reasons for supporting this proposal, but that does not affect my argument in the least, and my point is that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.
Like the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), we strongly support the Bill, but, if we find a flaw in it, I think we are entitled to point it out. We may be acting foolishly, but, if we think we have discovered a flaw in this Measure, it is our duty to voice it in this House. I hope that between now and the later stages of this Bill the point we have raised will be reconsidered. I think it is a great pity that the Minister of Health refuses to leave this question to a free vote of the Committee, because I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be greatly astounded at the result of such a free vote. I am aware that the learned Solicitor-General has stated that you cannot distinguish in this Bill between industries which are prosperous and industries which are not prosperous and we all agree with him there, but I think there is a case for distinguishing between these three industries and other industries on the ground that there is already a differentiation by the imposition of duties and the issuing of licences. That is why we say, frankly, that if you want to give a benefit to these particular industries it should only be done in such
a way that the relief given should be passed on to the consumer by a reduction in the cost of the articles consumed. We cannot debate that point now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not indicate what he proposes to do in the next Budget, but in the past a relief in the scale of duty has always been conditional on a reduction in cost. I want the same again.
For these reasons, I ask the Minister of Health to reconsider this point. He has already told us that there is plenty of prejudice in this Amendment and no principle, but sometimes prejudice carries us a very long way. In view of the fact that these three industries, through their licences, have for many years been plaeed on an entirely different basis from other industries, I ask that they should now be placed outside the ambit of this Measure. Our proposal will not cost the Government anything. It is seldom we can ask for something that is not going to involve a charge. By taking these three industries out of derating there will be a corresponding amount less for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find. For these reasons, I think the Minister of Health would be very well advised to accept this Amendment, which I shall support, and which I know a great many of my hon. Friends will also support in the Lobby.

Miss WILKINSON: It has been argued that there is nothing to be said against the point made by the Minister of Health that it would be very difficult to exempt from de-rating any trade from this Bill. May I point out that a very great deal of British law is not built on strict logic but on common sense, and I suggest that the common sense of this country, and especially the women, will be against handing over this large sum of public money to the liquor and tobacco trade at a time when the Government are cutting down grants for maternity and child welfare. Whatever logic you bring to bear on this question, you cannot get away from the fact that by this Bill you are subsidising a trade which the moral sense of the country feels should not be subsidised. It does outrage the moral conscience of the people of this country that the drink trade should be subsidised by public money in view of the large profits that particular trade is making and the mischief it is doing to the people of this country. Even the Queen herself
has written saying that she is disturbed by the appalling increase of maternity fatalities. It is one of the outstanding scandals of our present time that the number of deaths in maternity cases has not been reduced.
I would remind the Minister of Health that during a previous Debate, just before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess, a number of hon. Members on this side of the House pleaded with the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Education for extra grants of boots and clothing for the necessitous area, and we were told that no money could be found for that purpose. Consequently, there was a danger of those areas being left in great distress for the want of boots and clothing. Now we are told that £650,000 is the sum which is going to be given to subsidise the highly lucrative trades represented by breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories. I do not envy the Conservative Members opposite who will have to face the women electors on this subject.
The finance of this Bill is so very contradictory and complicated that I am aware that a large number of voters are not taking the trouble to understand it, but it is a plain fact, at any rate, that at a time when you are cutting down and stabilising grants for maternity and child welfare you are subsidising breweries and distilleries. That is a fact which the women of this country will thoroughly understand, and they will make their voices heard in a way which I am sure will not be to the advantage of hon. Members opposite. In many necessitous areas the authorities are paying out relief on loan, and as soon as a man gets a job he has to start paying off that loan. I am going to tell those men that at the same time that they are being called upon to pay off their little loans the Government are contributing £650,000 to the tobacco and distilling industries. There is no common sense about that performance. I say to the Minister of Health that if he wishes to save the wrecking of this Bill he had better listen to common sense.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: While many hon. Members on the Conservative benches feel some sympathy with the objects which the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have at heart, I think they are trying to achieve their objects in a wrong way. They are proposing to
cut breweries, distilleries, and tobacco factories out of this Bill, and they are introducing by their Amendment something which cuts at the root of the whole Measure. I think they are being misled in trying to distinguish between prosperous and non-prosperous industries. One of the objections raised to giving these benefits to the brewers and tobacco manufacturers is that it is so small that they cannot pass it on for the benefit of the consumer. Surely the reason for the inability to pass this benefit on to the consumer lies in the fact that these two particular industries are of a special nature.
As compared with other industries, it is contended that they are subjected to a very heavy excise duty and that that duty is so enormous in proportion to the cost of production that it is impossible for them to pass on to the consumer the £400,000 they will get under this Bill. Surely that fact indicates that there is another line of approach to bring about the result. If you object to breweries and tobacco manufacturers receiving £400,000 because they cannot pass it on to the consumers, surely the proper way to get over the difficulty is to increase slightly the Excise Duty by a corresponding amount on the occasion of the next Budget. That is the proper way to get over the difficulty and that is the way my hon. Friends should have gone about their task instead of introducing an Amendment which strikes at the root of the whole principle of the Bill and which will prevent them going on to any public platform and defending the principle of this Bill whenever there is any Liberal opposition at their meetings.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander KENW0RTHY: I interrupted the Minister of Health when he began to speak, and I apologise for it. When he referred to a post
Mortem I thought he was going to hold the Liberal party up to ridicule for an incident that happened just before, and I thought it was not fair. I understand now that he was blessing the principle of the Liberal Amendment, and I apologise for interrupting him, which I should not have done in any ease. This Amendment has been supported, among others, by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and by the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Lumley)——

Mr. LUMLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I read in our excellent local paper that the hon. Member had made a speech in which he said that it would be a mistake to give this relief to the breweries. I am sorry if I made a mistake. I leave him out of the same category as the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, and the other Members who have supported this Amendment. Their mistake is that they have shown their independence two years too late. They could have exercised enormous influence in this Parliament by a show of independence on their benches. If they had carried their convictions with them into the Division Lobbies, they could have altered the whole economic history of this country by bringing pressure to bear upon the Government, but always, though they talked bravely on the benches, they ran away in the Division Lobby, and the Ministers were able to defy them. The result is that you see the spectacle of the Minister of Health flaying his own Friends, who have dared to make this suggestion to him, even more adroitly and painfully than he attempts to flay me and my Friends. It shows the contempt in which the hon. Members supporting the Government are held by the Government. They know that they will all the time do what the Whips tell them. Their show of independence has come too late. Well may the Patronage Secretary benignly smile ever the scene. He never had so easy a task or so docile a team to drive.
On the merits of the Amendment, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted it. I am sorry, too, on political grounds. It may give us a cry in the country, but we have many other things to criticise in the Bill besides this. If he had accepted it, it would have shown up the hollowness of the whole of the Government's proposals. It is because I think the Bill is a bad one that I want it to fall to pieces. I object to the taxpayers' money being expended in subsidising either the breweries or the gramophone factories. We were told at the beginning, in the original Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the object of the Government was to help the great basic industries which are depressed, iron, steel, coal and agriculture. We never
dreamt at that time that such industries as—making gramophones has been mentioned—distilling perfumes, in which you use alcohol, which would be exempted. If you are going to cut the whisky distilleries out of relief under this Bill, how can you leave the perfume distilleries in? Gramophones have been mentioned and so has artificial silk. In addition to those, the Government are giving relief to makers of cosmetics, of face powders, and aids to the complexion. Are they harmful? No. Are they luxuries? Yes. Are they necessary? No, except in the case of poor actresses or workers on the films. Why should you relieve manufacturers of cosmetics? Some people, of course, say that these aids to the appearance do far less harm to women than the drinking of strong spirits, and strong beer.
I am sorry that the Minister of Health suggested that the hon. Member for York had not read the Bill, because it is the kind of document he delights in, the sort of thing he lives on. I am sorry he is accused of not understanding it. I wish I understood it as well as he does; I wish I had his profound intelligence. When, however, we get an attack upon this section of the Bill from such a quarter, we know then that the whole of the Bill is absolutely rotten. I will give one example from my own constituency. There is a great and successful firm of sweet manufacturers there. They do a very large home trade and export trade, and employ workpeople living in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for East Hull. They will get £1,500 relief on rates under the Bill. For the purpose of helping their home trade or export trade that will be absolutely useless, because their turnover is so great. They employ hundreds of workpeople and use hundreds of tons of sugar and chocolate. They will be in the same position as the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and his friends. They will not be able to pass it on by reducing prices. It is simply a free gift, which they have not asked for and do not want. Does their factory represent one of the great basic industries of the country? Of course it does not.
I agree with the Minister of Health that you cannot really partition off the prosperous from the non-prosperous
industries, because there are breweries, for example, losing money to-day. Neither can 600 Members in this Chamber decide which are luxury trades and which are not, because there will be 600 different opinions. That being the case, why did not the Government stick to what are admittedly the industries in need of help, such as iron and steel, coal and agriculture? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman attempt something simpler instead of this grandiose scheme? Must he have this great monumental Bill in spite of its blemishes and blunders? It does not run on the lines of the simple Measure we ought to have. I hope the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs), who moved this Amendment, will come into the Division Lobby with us, and he will find that he has done a good thing for the country.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am interested in this Amendment, and perhaps not from an entirely unprejudiced point of view. But it has been put so fairly and so logically by members of our party that I am sorry the Minister did not accept it. When he brought the Bill in, he asked the House to do all that they could to improve it, but, when a real effort is made to improve it without any injury to its fundamentals, I am sorry he will not agree to it. I appeal to him from the point of view of the country. We all know that we are going to find it very difficult to fight against the misrepresentations of the Bill. I am not in the least frightened; I am not upset by the fact that some people say that it is going to penalise maternity and child welfare work. I do not believe that for one moment. I do not believe that we have ever had a Minister who cared more about public health or knew more about local government than the one we have now. I am not saying he is infallible, but on the whole we Could not get a better man. I can quite understand the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) being annoyed with the Minister for bringing in so good a Bill, and so complicated and vast a Measure that he does not understand it all. It is naturally irritating. He wants something simpler. I agree that our intelligence cannot grasp it all. We want something simpler.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I never complained that I did not understand the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is quite obvious from the hon. and gallant Member's speech that he does not. I am a supporter of the Bill, and it is not from the point of view of some of the Members opposite that I criticise it. When the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spoke he showed that there were three industries which were different from any other industries in the country. They are the only industries which are penalised by all governments, because it is to the interest of the country as a whole to do so. The hon. and gallant Member for Whitehaven (Mr. K. Hudson) said that, if we wanted to get the money back from these industries, we might put on a slight increase in the excise duty by the Budget. If the Minister had said that, that would have satisfied all of us. But I do not trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Interruption.] If the Minister had only said that, we should have been quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, because it would have satisfied us, and I hope very much that Members on this side of the Committee will go into the Division Lobby with us.
We are supposed to follow Cabinet decisions, but I have known some very bad Cabinet decisions, which it would have been far better for our party for us to oppose. It is not too late to mend now. It will not wreck the principle of the Bill, and the proposal of the Government is going to do us tremendous harm in the country because it is a very difficult thing on which to fight. I appeal to the Minister to listen to reason, and not to stick so solemnly to logic. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) says that we are not supposed to be a very logical people, but I am convinced that what the movers of this Amendment are proposing is quite logical and will not wreck the Bill, but, on the other hand, will help us in fighting for the Bill, because it will remove one of the causes of a great deal of misrepresentation. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is quite different. It proposed to penalise flourishing industries, but that cannot be done satisfactorily.
I am not prepared to vote against this Amendment. I have the courage of my convictions. I would appeal to hon. Members opposite, in fighting against this Bill, to fight fairly, and I appeal to the Government to give us a chance to meet the great opposition that we have to meet, and not to make decisions in Cabinets and then come down and tell those who are anxious to improve the Bill that we cannot vote against it. I do not believe it will help the Government if we all troop in behind them; I think it will help them far more in the future if we do not. Many a time I have voted against the Government, and, when we have gone to the country, I have rejoiced in it, and the people in the country themselves have been pleased. We have the courage of our conviction that, in voting for this Amendment, we shall not only be helping the Bill, but shall be helping the Government, and I hope very much that, when the fight comes, they will be returned with some younger additions to the Front Bench.

Mr. BROAD: I support this Amendment. The Minister in his reply showed the respect that he has for those behind him by the light and airy way in which he rode off on the question of logic. There may be some decent principles in the Bill, but every one of them is illogical, for there is no logic throughout the whole Bill. We here are supposed to represent the views of the people, and the Minister knows that, if he were to call a meeting of his own supporters in his own constituency, they would be opposed to him on this matter. If he were to call a meeting, in secret, of his own supporters in the House, they would be opposed to him on it, but, in the superiority of his own intellectual correctness, he claims that logic is on his side. He says that this must not be regarded as a sop or a dole to certain people, but that this is a Measure which is to remedy an injustice, and, in remedying that injustice, he himself has discriminated between various classes of ratepayers.
The whole system of the imposition of a national responsibility upon citizens in relation to the property that they occupy has no foundation in justice whatever. It has no relation to the value they receive from the services in question, or to their ability to pay. The Minister says that
he cannot discriminate, but he has discriminated particularly between various classes of ratepayers. He has discriminated between various classes of businesses, and, even if he gets the Clause through as it is to-day when he comes to apply it he will have very great difficulty in deciding which are productive industries and which are not productive industries. Therefore, he will have to discriminate, as he has discriminated all the way along. He is going to make this concession to his friends the brewers, regardless of the opinion of the House of Commons and regardless of the opinion of the people of this country. He is going' to stick to that position simply because he is so superior that he believes that no one can suggest to him an improvement in the Measure which he has brought forward.
There is a very distinct line that we can draw with regard to these particular industries and the rest of productive industry, and that is that the industry of producing alcoholic drinks is so dangerous and very often so harmful that the nation has restricted it and bound it and ruled it in regard both to its production and to its distribution. That is the kind of industry which is to have this sop. The Minister says that he cannot distinguish between it and any other kind of industry. There is another kind of industry in regard to which he has made a distinction. He has made a distinction between the industry of agriculture and the rest of productive industry. He says that the incidence of rating on productive industry is unfair, and he is going to reduce it by three-fourths. I suppose he thinks that 25 per cent. is a fair proportion of the rates that such industries ought to pay in return for the services they receive or in respect of their responsibility to the community. But agriculture also makes a demand on the public services, and agriculture is to pay not a penny of contribution. I defy the Minister to say how otherwise that can be regarded than as a sop to try to satisfy the agricultural interests which have been so much prejudiced by the action of this Government. It is nothing more or less than a dole.
There, therefore, the Minister has made a discrimination, and I think that in this instance, having regard to the opinion of the country, and having
regard to the honest opinion of Members behind him, he ought to concede this point with regard to these particular industries, since, however much their profits are increased, it is not going to increase the welfare or employment of this country. Those profits are inflated by the very fact of the industry being restricted. It is able to create a monopoly, and to-day it claims ungodly profits beyond any fair return on the money invested or the ability that has been put into the business, simply because it is a monopoly; and, on the top of that, it is to be granted a further sum of £650,000. That money could well be used to assist those necessitous poor law areas where the unemployed or partially employed man has to pay his full amount of rates, very often up to 30s. in the £. That money could be used to assist the local authorities, and it will be a pitiful position when the Minister will have to say, "I could not find money for milk for babies, but I can find £400,000 for my friends the brewers." I hope that hon. Members will use their votes to interpret the views of the electors who sent them here. If they do that, the Minister, when the result of the Division is announced, will find himself in a very small minority of the Committee.

Mr. GILLETT: In the few minutes before the Division is taken I should like to say that, as an opponent of the Bill, I am quite prepared to support this Amendment. At the same time, having listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman and of those who have been criticising him, I think he has taken up the only logical position that he could take up. His argument is that he wishes to have a complete rating reform, and that, to my mind, precludes him from accepting the Amendment; but, at the same time, it brings out the fact! that the basis upon which the Bill has been founded is entirely mistaken. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment stated that at a meeting of his own supporters the proposal to give these allowances which would benefit the brewers was evidently disliked, and in other meetings and in other places exactly the same thing will be found. One could easily go to a meeting and ask why the rates of the Mond chemical works should be relieved, or why the works of
Messrs. Morris at Oxford should be relieved, and in many other cases probably the same opinion would be expressed as has been expressed to the hon. Member with regard to the brewers.
When this Measure begins to work, difficulties will be found to an increasing extent all over the country, and this is a fundamental defect in the Bill. A man in one street is going to ask why his neighbour who happens to be engaged in one kind of industry is having his rates reduced, while he himself is struggling with the difficulties of his own business, and it will be found increasingly difficult to explain the difference between a productive industry and the other industries around it. The same difficulty will also be found in regard to those who are living in working-classes houses, the rents of which are already heavier than they can bear. This discrimination only brings out the defects of the Measure in trying to differentiate as regardstaxation on the line that the Minister is taking, and, while he himself has taken the only line that was possible to him on this Amendment, the hon. Members who support the Amendment have shown a certain amount of knowledge of what people are feeling. There is no shadow of doubt that the weak part of the Measure, from the popular standpoint, is that which relates to the very question with which the Amendment seeks to deal. This question is going to be debated over and over again, and I think it will be found, in the final working of the Measure, that the right hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental mistake.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I crave the two minutes which the hon. Member has kindly left me to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy) for enabling me to make up my mind on this Amendment. I am bound to confess that I was in some doubt to begin with, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the Mover of the Amendment, but the fair and accurate and logical way in which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull proved that, if you once exempt these industries, you will have to exempt also such industries as the scent industry and many others which he detailed, and thereby destroy the whole basis of the Measure and make the whole position ridiculous, convinced me, and I hope and
believe a number of my hon. Friends who may also have been in doubt, that it is desirable to support the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 219.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Astor, Viscountess
Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland]


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bellamy, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Berry, Sir George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briggs, J. Harold
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield. William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Townend, A. E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


England, Colonel A.
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.




Smith.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bullock, Captain M.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Albery, Irving James
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Campbell, E. T.
Davison, sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cassels, J. D.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Drewe, C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.s.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balniel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bevan, S. J.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fermoy, Lord


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Clayton, G. C.
Fielden, E. B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brass, Captain W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cope, Major Sir William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gates, Percy


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Goff, Sir park
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Sandon, Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Greene, W P. Crawford
MacIntyre, Ian
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McLean, Major A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Balfst.)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Skelton, A. N.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hall, Capt. W. D 'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Malone, Major P. B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hamilton, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harland, A.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Honn, Sir Sydney H.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hilton, Cecil
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Waddington, R.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watson, Sir F, (Pudsey and Otley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perring, Sir William George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pitcher, G.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Radford, E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Womersley, W. J.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner, Major L.
Wragg, Herbert


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Loder, J. de V.
Salmon, Major I.



Long, Major Eric
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lucas, Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Victor Warrender.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the. Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 117.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Layton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cant'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briscoe, Richard George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Clayton, G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cope, Major Sir William


Berry, Sir George
Caine, Gordon Hall
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Bethel, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Carver, Major W. H.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Bevan, S. J.
Cassels, J. D.
Crooke, J. Smedlay (Deritend)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Renter, J. R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworthm, Cen'l)
Ropner, Major L.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Drewe, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Major I.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edge, sir William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Elliot, Major Walter E.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


England, Colonel A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fairfax, Captain J G.
Loder, J. de V.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord c.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
MacIntyre, Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D steel-
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tinne, J. A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grant, Sir J. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Waddington, R.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hacking, Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hamilton, Sir George
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wells, S. R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harland, A.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Withers, John James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wolmer, Viscount


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hills, Major John Waller
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wragg, Herbert


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Perring, Sir William George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pilcher, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Radford, E. A.
Warrender.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Raine, Sir Walter



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, A.
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bellamy, A.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bondfield, Margaret
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Briant, Frank
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Dennison, R.
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Duncan, C
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bromley, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fenby, T. D.
Harris, Percy A.


8uchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P.
Hayday, Arthur




Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T, E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H.
Owen, Major G.
Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Riley, Ben
Tomlinson, R. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Townend, A. E.


Kennedy, T.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lee, F.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lowth, T.
Sexton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mackinder, W.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


Morris, R. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Mosley, Sir Oswald
Stamford, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith.

CLAUSE 56.—(Amendment of valuation lists on or after appointed day.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 57.—(Valuation of agricultural dwelling-houses.)

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, in page 48, line 39, to leave out the words "in connection with agricultural land."
The object of this Amendment is to do away with what is undoubtedly a very great injustice in the Bill as it now stands. If I have your permission, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I should like to discuss this and the consequential Amendments standing in my name. The effect of the Amendments which I have put down would make the Clause read as follows:
As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, the gross value for rating purposes of a house occupied and used as the dwelling-house of a person who—

(a) is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations whether on land held under the same ownership or tenancy as the said house or on other land; or
(b) is employed in agricultural operations or on work in connection with an agricultural estate and occupies the house by virtue of that employment, either on a tenancy from his employer or as a service occupation."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Do I understand the Noble Marquess wishes to discuss the whole of his four Amendments on the first Amendment?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Yes, if I have your permission, Sir.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All right.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is really not possible to take these Amendments apart. The object of them is to do away with what I have already said is undoubtedly an injustice under the present system. The Bill as it stands allows the valuer, when he is valuing a cottage occupied by an agricultural labourer for rating purposes, to take into account the rent that that labourer pays only if the cottage is a tied cottage. Houses that come under that category will be valued for rating purposes not according to the rent which might conceivably be received in the market, but according to the rent which is actually received. So far so good; that is obviously just and fair. But that provision does not apply to a house which is not a tied cottage. Such a house might equally be occupied by a farm labourer, and it might under the new valuation be assessed at a very high value, perhaps many times in excess of the rent which the farm labourer is paying for it or which the landlord is receiving in respect of it. One of the objects of this Bill is to secure a uniformity of rating throughout' the country, and the object of my Amendment is to help the Bill by providing something like uniformity in this respect. Obviously, if the Clause is carried unaltered it will perpetuate a very gross inequality. It is obviously unfair and wholly contrary to the principles of equality that one cottage merely because
it is let with a farm should be rated at, say, 3s. per week while another cottage occupied by a man receiving the same wages and paying the same rent should be rated at a very much higher value.
The practice throughout the country is not by any means uniform. In some parts of England, it is customary for farm labourers' cottages to be let with the farm, and they are commonly called tied cottages. Hon. Members of Opposition parties have very often strongly objected to the principle of tied cottages. That system is not universal. There are other parts of England where it is customary for the labourer to live, not on the farm, but at a cottage near by. I am inclined to think that that is the better system. In the one case the tied cottage will be valued low and the untied cottage, the free cottage, may be rated very high indeed. It is to alter that anomaly that I am asking my right hon. Friend to accept, at any rate, the spirit of this Amendment. I hardly expect that he will be able to accept the whole of it. For various reasons, there are, I quite appreciate, very great difficulties. It is the principle of the rating system that it is the house which is rated and not the tenant, and there are difficulties in the way of my right hon. Friend accepting the whole of my Amendment. I very much hope, however, that he will consider the matter very carefully, and I am convinced that if he will do so he will accept the spirit of the Amendment.
Since putting down these Amendments it has occurred to me that it might well have been better and simpler if I had attempted to re-draft the Clause instead instead of attempting to amend the rather clumsy drafting of the Clause as it stands and it had been made to read:
That cottages occupied by persons who come within the scope of the Agricultural Wages Act,
and then go on from the word "shall" in line 4, of page 49. That is to say, wash out the whole of the first part of the Clause and merely make it apply to persons coming within the scope of the Agricultural Wages Act. Again, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would be able to accept that suggestion. I hope that he will realise that the present system does inflict a very great injustice. The farm labourers' cottage cannot com-
mand a high rent. It is about 3s. on the average. It is clearly unjust and unfair that it should be possible, as it is possible now and will be possible under this Bill, for the valuaton officer to come along and say: "Here is a cottage which, if not let to an agricultural labourer or to a man employed on the estate who is essential for the upkeep of the land, could be let to a man who might come down to the country for the week-end. Therefore, I am going to value that cottage at 16s. or- 17s. a week." I know from my own experience that that has happened.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the spirit of the Amendment and that, if he cannot accept, anyhow, some part of it, he will consider the suggestion which I have made, that the exemption that Clause 57 provides should be extended to persons coming within the scope of the Agricultural Wages Act. If he will give an assurance that he will do his best, I have no desire to press the Amendment. I am convinced that, if he will consider the matter carefully, he will realise the justice of it. Under such circumstances, I should be justified in withdrawing the Amendment.

Captain O'CONNOR: I rise to support the Amendment. It seems to me that, probably unintentionally, this Clause, as it stands at present, marks a retrograde movement in legislation appertaining to farm cottages. It has been recognised now for a great many years that the tied cottage is not an advantageous system. I do not know whether the Committee have appreciated that the Clause, if it passes into law as it is at present, puts an actual premium upon the tied cottage system. Under the Clause as it is at present, the tied cottage is to be rated substantially lower than a smaller cottage not tied, but which might be occupied by a person in exactly the same position of life as the occupant of the tied cottage. It seems to me that that is entirely a retrograde step, and that the true test for the basis of assessment of agricultural labourers' cottages should be the former occupation of the tenant, irrespective of whether the cottage be attached to the land which is tilled by the labourer or whether it be occupied by a tenant free to move from the service of one farmer or landowner to another. It is for these reasons that this series of
Amendments is moved, as it is apprehended that unless some modification is secured there will be a distinct advantage in converting cottages to the tied system. The effect of that, one imagines, might very well be that it might be to the advantage of agricultural labourers who are at present in independent occupation of their own cottages to transfer their cottages to their landlords in order that they might come. within the ambit of the Act.

8.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: My Noble Friend the Member for West Derby (Marquess of Hartington) has put forward this Amendment with his usual clearness and lucidity. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) has certainly put his finger upon an objection which is likely to be raised from one point of view of the proposals contained in the Bill, but I would remind the Committee that the Clause with which we are now dealing is, as it is entitled, a consequential provision upon the relief which has been approved by the House in Clauses 44 and 45. We are really in this particular provision preserving in the case of farmhouses and tied farm cottages a special basis of assessment provided by Section 5 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, which will otherwise cease when, on the 31st March, 1930, that Act will be repealed. A promise was made during the passage of the Apportionment Act that this particular provision should be carried into effect. What we are doing in this provision is simply to preserve what we call the status quo. The Amendment seeks to extend the present special basis of valuation in two ways, first, to any dwelling-house occupied by a person whose primary occupation is the carrying on or direction of agricultural operations, whether on land occupied in connection with the house or on other land, and, secondly, to the dwelling-house, wherever it may be, of an agricultural labourer or a person who is employed on work in connection with an agricultural estate. The difficulty, as my Noble Friend hinted, so far as the Government is concerned, is that if we accepted the Amendment it would give the benefit of the farmhouse basis of assessment to the dwelling-house of any proprietor of land, who might easily claim that his primary occupation was the
carrying on of agricultural operations. In such a case, a claim might be made in respect of a very large and important residence, not remotely resembling a farmhouse.
Another effect of the Amendment would be to give the benefit of the special basis of valuation to every cottage, wherever situated, occupied by a man who is an agricultural labourer or an estate worker. As regards the second matter, the noble Lord realises that it is entirely contrary to the principle of rating law to take into account the trade or occupation of the actual occupier of premises. In estimating the annual value, which, it must be remembered, is the rental value to a hypothetical tenant, it is impossible for the Government to consider favourably that part of the Amendment, because we might very well, if it were carried into effect, have this position, that there would be cottages in the same village street, occupying equal accommodation, one assessed, according to the proposal, at a materially lower figure than the other, simply because the occupier for the time being happened to be an agricultural labourer or an estate worker, while the occupier of the other was, say, a cobbler. Every member of the Committee will agree that that would be a very difficult position for any Government to substantiate or stand by, if they were to accept any such proposal.
There is one point which my noble Friend raised which certainly demands further consideration from the point of view of the Government, and that is the last of the four Amendments, which seeks to prevent a differentiation between a cottage occupied on a tenancy or as a service occupation. I think I can undertake that in that particular connection we will consider between now and the Report stage whether we cannot put on the Paper for the consideration of the Committee some words which might help. I think that would go some way to meet my noble Friend. I will endeavour to confer with him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. O'Connor) as to how far we can meet them in that connection before we put the Amendment on the Paper. That is as far as the Government can go. I hope that on that assurance my hon. Friends will feel that something will be done as a result of their efforts, and in
those circumstances perhaps they will not consider it necessary to press the matter further at this particular moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment illustrates the difficulties into which the Government have landed themselves by this Clause. I did not realise when I read the Clause how much depended upon it. This Clause is to put the farmhouse on a much better footing as regards rates than exactly similar houses which are not used as farmhouses—on a materially lower basis, I think the right hon. Gentleman said. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before we part from this Clause, how far lower it will be I have talked to many people who are on assessment committees in the counties and none of them has the faintest idea how the values are to be put on the farmhouses. If the principle laid down was what the house would let at in its present condition and what it would let at if put for an open tender, people would know at once and the assessment committees could decide what the proper assessment for the farmhouse would be, but the adoption of this Clause means that it depends absolutely upon the assessment committees as to what value they shall put on the farmhouse. They have no guide whatever. I have heard it said that in some cases the farmhouse will be put on as low a basis as 2s. a week. Under this Bill, the farmers not only get off all rates on the farm buildings and all rates on the farm land, but nearly all the rates on their houses. For an ordinary house, not let, in connection with land, it is perfectly easy for the assessment committee to find what rent is paid, and to base on that the gross and net assessment of the property, but when the house is let in connection with land and the rent includes a large area of land as well as the house, there is no guide as to the rateable value apart from the land.
The only possible guide as to the annual value of a house is what the house would let at to somebody else who is not a farmer. If it was let not in connection with the land there would be some guide to go upon, but if this Clause goes through, there will be no guide whatever as to what annual value can be put on the farmhouse. Now the noble Lord asks for a very material concession, the degree and amount of which we are completely
unable to determine and the Government cannot tell us. We are asked to extend the concession to the estate hands working on a big estate and to the agricultural labourers who live in the villages, and to everybody connected with agriculture. The only part which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted is that relating to the estate hands, so I understand. They are to have their house property assessed not on its letting value but on some imaginary fictitious value which is undefined and undefinable. That is an example of what happens when you take a completely exceptional attitude towards agriculture, or towards any set of ratepayers. You destroy the whole system of assessment, and treat the farmer as a specially benefited form of ratepayer. He is escaping an enormous amount of rates in connection with his land and his farm buildings. Why, in addition, should we give him the privilege of occupying a house and paying rates on that house on a much lower scale than the ratepayers next door? It is nonsense to say that the farmer is harder up than the blacksmith or the shopkeeper next door or any of the other village people who occupy houses, and yet he is to be given not only exemption in regard to rates on his land and his farm buildings but hi3 house is to be assessed on an artificially low valuation.
Throughout the country to-day, house property is being re-assessed. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, he ought to know that the re-assessment of house property is being shoved up on the present owner-occupier, and the Government, at this particular moment, are assessing the house of the farmer on an artificially low scale. His assessment is to be reduced below any figure that is based upon a rental value of the property. I think the Government are digging their own grave. There is a sense of injustice throughout the whole countryside that the Government are treating the rich farmer on a scale of generosity which makes the hardships of the other householders in the district appear to be the more flagrant. While I have no objection to their extending the concession to estate hands, and I can see some advantage in that, there ought to be some limit to this bribery of the agricultural interests to vote Conservative at the next election, in spite of the National Farmers' Union.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I think the right hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will you withdraw it, then?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, but I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to read it. He would then see that there is no new concession on these houses of farmers, and on the houses occupied by their workers. If he will look at the end of the Clause he will see, if he compares it with the words which I will read, that it repeats the law laid down for the valuation of these premises under the Act of 1896.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was when the land was valued, too.

Mr. GUINNESS: No. The Act of 1896 made provision that in order to give effect to the agricultural rates relief the farm houses should be valued on exactly the same basis as that laid down in this Clause. The valuation had to be split so that the farmer could get the benefit of the remission of half his rates on agricultural land, which he would not. get if when you split the assessment you placed an excessive valuation on the residential parts of the hereditament.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By the words "excessive valuation," I take it that the right hon. Gentleman means a just valuation as compared with other property.

Mr. GUINNESS: What I mean is an excessive valuation as compared with the proportion that that valuation bore to the total value before the concession was made. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are giving a new concession. That is not the purpose of the Clause. It is to maintain the existing system, under which this particular form of house property is given the favourable assessment which it has possessed ever since 1896. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the words at the end of the Clause he will see that they are practically a repetition of a Section of the Act of 1896.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am moving an Amendment to leave them out.

Mr. GUINNESS: The Act of 1896 says:
Where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings, the gross estimated rental of the buildings when valued separately, in pursuance of this Act, for the agricutural land, shall, while the buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land, be calculated not on structural cost, but on a rent at which they would be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, if they could only be so used.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no foundation for the suggestion that this Clause is in the nature of a bribe—I think he used that word—to farmers. It is merely maintaining for them an advantage which they have possessed for the last 32 years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the only purpose of the Clause is to maintain the status quo. Does not that mean that whilst the assessment of all other properties will increase under the new assessments that in this particular kind of property a concession is preserved for a particular section of the community? Is not that the intention of this Clause?

Mr. GUINNESS: It preserves the status quo as it has been in existence since 1896.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In effect, then, the Clause is intended to retain the status quo for a particular kind of hereditament while all other kinds of property are finding their assessments constantly increasing. I had a letter from a constituent of mine in which he puts the question as to whether the fact that agricultural property and land is now being de-rated has any connection with the colossal increases in business premises in his particular town. He says that locally the Tory people are trying to create the belief that the two things have no relation to each other. The fact remains, however, that while you are retaining the status quo for property of the kind described in this Clause, all other hereditaments, and particularly business premises, find their assessments increased by 1 per cent. up to 300 per cent., and it requires a great deal to satisfy us that there is no connection between the two. I am perfectly satisfied that this preservation of a particular assessment for a certain kind of property is a concession to a certain class of individual, and made quite obviously at the expense of the rest of the ratepayers.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. During the Norfolk dispute over wages in 1924 one large farmer purchased several houses in the town, not hitherto occupied by agricultural labourers, the purpose being, of course, to get rid of the existing tenants and put new farm labourers in the houses recently purchased. Ordinarily, the assessments would be much higher than the assessment of an ordinary cottage occupied by an agricultural labourer. I want to ask, does this Clause mean that all these houses will be assessed on the basis of the agricultural labourer's cottage? In another case we have the farmer who has no tied cottages, whose labourers are living perfectly free in the tenancy of their homes. It may be that their rent is higher, or that the house is not close to the farm, but the man performs the work of an agricultural labourer. Will that kind of property receive the same benefit as the ordinary tied cottage? Further, there is the individual who, unable to find other kinds of work, has taken the tenancy of 10 acres of land, which does not occupy the whole of his time. He resides in an agricultural village, and owns his own house. Will that individual be entitled to the same concession which this Clause preserves for all agricultural cottage property? If the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question, we shall be much better satisfied before we take a vote.
Let me remind him of this: I have a case in mind, which is typical of many, where what was yesterday purely an agricultural area has become to-day partly agricultural and partly mining, and you have a mixed population of agriculturists and miners. You have a miner residing in one house and an agricultural labourer in the next. Are we to understand that under this Clause the house tenanted by the agricultural labourer will be assessed at a lower figure than the house immediately adjoining where the tenant happens to be a miner? If that is the case. obviously, an injustice is being done. Why should there be this discrimination? It may be that certain sections of agriculture are sorely depressed, but it is generally recognised that there is no industry more depressed than mining, and certainly thousands of miners find it impossible to pay the rents they are charged. If you are preserving a conces-
sion for agriculture it seems to me that it is not unfair to insist on the same concession being granted to the mining population. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why there should be this discrimination and will answer the three questions I have put to him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I explain to the Committee what I think the Clause means, and then what the Amendment means, because it is most important that we should know where we are. The Clause grants the possibility of an abnormally low assessment on the farm house and the tied cottages on the farm, and only to the tied cottages on the farm. I will not argue as to the justice of that. The Amendment seeks to extend that artificially low assessment to other properties—namely, to the cottages of farm labourers whose cottages are not tied, which, for instance, are in the village. That has been turned down by the Government. The Amendment also seeks to extend it to the houses of people employed by large landowners. There are two kinds; the bailiffs' houses, and the stewards' houses. The bailiff of a big property is a man very much in the same position as the farmer, except that he is paid a salary instead of making his profit from the farm. Up to now the bailiff's house or the agent's house, a gentleman's residence, has been assessed, like other houses, on what is called the full annual value, that is the amount for which the house would let. As I understand it, the concession made by the Government is that in future the bailiff's house shall not rank as a gentleman's residence, but as a farm house, and so get the benefit of this artificially low assessment.
Do I understand that the Government are also making a concession in the case of the farm labourers' houses on the gentleman's property but not in the case of the farm labourers in the villages? If my assumption is right the Government are making things much worse. If I let one of my cottages for two shillings a week to an estate hand, I fix that artificially low rent because I pay an artificially low wage. If I charged the man a full economic five shillings or six shillings a week for the cottage, I should have to pay him four shillings a week more wages. At the present time that kind of house is assessed at less than £10 a year. I may be wrong, but
I understand that all cottages in rural areas, assessed at £10 a year or less, already escape three-quarters of their rates under an Act that was passed two years ago. If that be so, surely that concession is quite as much as we need to make to the big landowner who farms his own estate but has a bailiff or agent. I ask the Government to state what concession they have made. We shall have no chance of voting on it on the Report stage. Will the concession apply to the agricultural labourer living on the gentleman's estate and working for him as an estate hand? Will it apply also to the well-to-do agent or bailiff living in a gentleman's house'5 How far is the concession going? We must ask now because we shall never have a further opportunity of doing so.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: We do not want this Amendment to be withdrawn because we think it a very just Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman and others have not met the point made by the Noble Lord and by the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), and that is that under the law as it stands certain privileges are granted to certain people in certain cottages tied to the land. The object of the Noble Lord's Amendment was to give the labourer who lives in a cottage that is not tied the same advantage as is received by the other people. That point has not been met and no one has said why it should not be done. We would not have brought in any of this sort of legislation, but, things being as they are, we think that the cottage that is not tied has as much right to privileges as has the cottage that is tied. For these reasons we shall vote for the Amendment and not allow it to be withdrawn.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension. I thought I had made the position of the Government perfectly plain. I am rather surprised, after the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to hear the hon. Member who has just spoken say that he and his party are in favour of the Amendment. The whole of the speech of the right hon. and gallant
Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was devoted to attacking and criticising the Amendment, but the last speaker says that he is in favour of the Amendment because that is a just Amendment. This conflict puts the Committee in a little difficulty. The position of the Government is this: We accept the suggestion made by my Noble Friend in the last of his Amendments and say that we will consider between now and the Report stage whether we can do anything to meet him. Perhaps, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will await the terms of the Government's proposal, for without considering the matter further I am not able to say what our proposal will be. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not be too pessimistic in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has had a fair opportunity to-day and he may have an opportunity again to deal with the proposal on Report. When any Amendment that we propose is put on the Paper the Opposition will be able to decide whether they are for or against it. With regard to the three questions which have been put to the Government, I must respectfully decline to give opinion on individual cases. What the hon. Gentleman who put the questions must do is to apply them to the definitions in the Bill. He will then see whether the particular case mentioned is
in connection with agricultural land and used as the dwelling-house of a person who—

(a) is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land; or
(b) is employed in agricultural operations on that land and occupies the house by virtue of that employment."
So long as that house is so occupied and used the consequences of this particular Clause would follow. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give opinions on individual cases. Probably he has in his possession full particulars which I have not got. Those particulars must be considered in relation to this Clause. A wrong impression may be gained from anything that I said now on incomplete information. No doubt the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will go into different Lobbies if we divide on this Amendment. All that we do in this
Clause is, as I have already said, to preserve the status quo. On the one hand the right hon. and gallant Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme wants to take away something from the beneficent provisions for the agricultural industry, and on the other hand the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley thinks that the Amendment is just and reasonable. With all those considerations before them I hope the Committee will be able to come to a decision on this important matter.

Mr. POTTS: I cannot agree at all with what the Parliamentary Secretary has stated. What he has said indicates that the existing law is to be undone entirely. What will be done in the case of all such houses will be this: Whatever the actual rent may be, they will have to be rated, "not exceeding the rent." I have been a member of a rural authority for more than 30 years, and as such I have valued property. I can mention a case in point. It is that of Lord St. Oswald and all his ground. He had people who worked on his ground and lived on the main road side in very fine houses. But the rents were fixed at a nominal £6 a year. They claimed that the rating should not exceed the rent less 15 per cent. The assessment committee did not accept that rendering of the law. We viewed the property and assessed it, having regard to its convenience and so forth, and in comparison with other similar property in the union. I suggest to the Minister that he should strike out the words
if it could not be occupied and used otherwise than as aforesaid,
and insert instead the words:
having regard to similar property in close proximity.
That would give the safeguard that in cases of this kind the assessment committee would view the property as they are in the habit of doing to-day. Very often a man who is working for some individual is allowed to have a house at a very low rent, but that is taken account of in the man's wages. There are many cases where the rents are low but where the wages are lower than they ought to be. I suggest that words should be included here which will enable assessment committees to make comparisons with similar properties in the union and fix the rateable value accordingly. If that were done, you would give equality
throughout the whole country but under this proposal you are going to give a concession which is a departure from the existing law. I hope the Amendment will be pressed unless the right hon. Gentleman promises to take these points into consideration.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to ask what is the actual position at the moment of all properties of this class under the Act of 1925 which is a product of the present Government. I think the position is that under the statutory deductions allowed in the Schedule of that Act these cottages get 40 per cent., or it may be 60 per cent. deduction. There is a substantial reduction already and that applies to property of this class all over the country. Now we are asked to differentiate in favour of a particular type of property. To do so would be to upset the basis of the rating law. The Act of 1925 repeats the provision of the Act of 1836 which has been the foundation of our rating system from that time until now. If we are going to differentiate in regard to agricultural property which is used as dwelling houses, it will upset the whole system and it will be quite logical then to demand similar preferences for other properties. The new assessments under the Act of 1925 are now being published and generally speaking they will show increases of anywhere from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. If the assessment committees do their work properly and without fear or favour there will be enormous increases in many counties. When the demand notes are served on the tenants and owner occupiers this Government will get its notice to quit. That will come in good time for the General Election, and, if nothing else serves to turn out this Government, that will do so.
Why interfere with the Act of 1925? You are introducing a legal fiction, a hypothetical tenant, something which does not exist under the rating law at present. If this proposal is pressed it will be possible logically to claim that the same thing should be done in respect of all cottage property throughout the country. The agricultural industry has got this benefit because a sympathetic Government is supporting a sympathetic industry, but if agriculture is entitled to this advantage because it is going
through bad times, the mining industry and other industries are equally entitled to it. You are giving industrial properties in these depressed areas 75 per cent. reduction of their rateable burden. If you can do that for the employer, why do you not do it for the worker who has to live on the spot and whose wages will

be reduced by the employers' policy unless something of the sort is done?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 107.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[8.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oakley, T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hamilton, Sir George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkinson, C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kenningion)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bevan, S. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Remer, J. R.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hills. Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cassels, J. D.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G L.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crooke, J Smedley (Deritend)
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lumley, L. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waddington, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonafd, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wallace, Captain D. L.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacIntyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Warrendar, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macmillan, Captain H,
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wragg, Herbert


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Major Sir William Cope and Captain


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A,
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bellamy, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H, C.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


England, Colonel A.
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Barnes.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The two Amendments to this Clause in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)— in page 49, line 4, to leave out the words "so long as the house is so occupied and used"; and to leave out from the second word "year," in line 6, to the end of the Clause—I am in some doubt about. It appears to me that the first would be in order, but I cannot say that I think that, if taken by itself, it makes any difference. In fact, I think the words, if put in, would be superfluous, but it is possible that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may want to move the two Amendments as one and argue them together. In that case, it appears to me, on the face of it, that that would really negative the Clause, and that, if they were carried, the Clause would then cease to exist. The matter is not quite clear, and I do not wish to dog matise upon it if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to argue it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Of course, I am taking the two Amendments together, as they are consequential. The position is rather peculiar. The law as it stands, if this Clause was not in, would remain as passed in 1896. That is to say, this
Clause as it stands is more or less declaratory of the law as it exists to-day. If we merely negative this Clause, we leave the law as it was passed in 1896. If, on the other hand, we carry these Amendments, we then make a fresh declaration, namely, that the practice of 1896 comes to an end and all farmhouse property is to be treated as other house property. Therefore, I submit that in this particular case the moving of these Amendments is not the negativing of the Clause, and that, if we did not take these Amendments, it would be impossible to state our case on a mere negativing of the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the case of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the Clause as it stands only affirms the law in case of doubt and does not make any change, but that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to change the law. The case is not quite clear, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 49, line 4, to leave out the words: "so long as the house is so occupied and used."
The whole country knows that at the present moment property is being reassessed, and I expect that my experience of the practice of the assessment committees in Staffordshire is similar elsewhere. What they are doing all round is asking every tenant of a house in the country, not in the town, what rent they are paying. You have to fill in a form stating the weekly or annual rent which you are paying for house property, whether it be a cottage or a house. Then the assessment committee collects together all that material obtained from the tenants and the landlords of the actual amount of rent paid for a particular house. The gross annual assessment is not generally the full amount of the rent, but something like 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. less than the full amount of the rent actually paid. Then they take property which is not let but occupied by the owner, and they compare that with other property which is let, wherever they have the record of the amount paid, and to-day throughout the country they are screwing up assessments so that the gross annual value of every property is really as near as possible the full rental value of that property.
In the old days that was never the case, and it was least of all the case in farm property. These properties were generally assessed far below the full rental value, but now all house property is screwed up to the full rental value. In 1896 farms were treated differently from other properties. The house was given an estimated rateable value, and now, when all other property is being treated uniformly throughout the country, the farm properties under this Clause are to continue to have the exceptionally low valuation provided for them in 1896 At this moment, when we are giving to the farmers the enormous benefit of the remission of rates upon their farm buildings and their land, the farm houses ought to be brought up to the level of all other property in the country, and they should be valued exactly like other properties on the full rental value in its present condition, that is to say, what anybody would pay to live in that house irrespective of how it is used. This would have been a good opportunity to do that, but in this Clause the Government seek to continue the manifestly unjust system of treating two sorts of
property owners completely differently. This Amendment would bring it to an end, and cause the farm house to be valued exactly like any other house. The Clause would then provide that the value of the farm house shall
be estimated by reference to the rent at which the house might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.
9.0 p.m.
That is the basis on which all other property is estimated, and I submit that we are justified, when we are giving this enormous bonus to the farming industry, in asking, them to put their houses on the same basis as other people. This is just the moment to do it, because, when other property is being raised 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. in value, the remission of rates on the farms will mean an enormous increase in the rates of other people. Looked at from another point of view, the increased assessments of ordinary house property will mean a decrease in the rates actually paid on the farm property, and, if you brought farmhouses up like other houses, the farmer would be actually paying probably no more than he is paying now. You are raising to a new standard ordinary house property—most unfairly, as every owner of house property thinks—and consequently the actual amount of rates paid ought to go down. It should go down on farm property, but, in spite of that, the Government are still continuing this discrimination between farm and other property. I am sure that the Minister would have made this Amendment if he could, but I can imagine the resistance of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am only sorry that in the Minister's natural wish to do justice and to make his rating and local government reform clean and clear-cut throughout, he should have been over-persuaded and beaten by the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that in the country areas particularly the injustice which is engendered by the different treatment of the farm property of the richer farmer and the property of the poorer tradesman next door will create an enormous amount of bitterness and be prejudicial to the acceptance of the Measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has moved an Amendment, the effect of which will be to negative the operation of this Clause, and in justification he has made a number of statements
on the strength of which he assumes that I am, contrary to my better judgment, acting in deference to the wishes of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. That is not so at all. It is quite true that I wish to see justice done, and, if this Clause were going to perpetuate an injustice, I should certainly not have given my support to it. I would like to remind the Committee of the circumstances which lead to the inclusion of this Clause. In 1896, the Agricultural Rates Act was passed. That made a distinction between agricultural land on the one hand, and agricultural buildings and farmhouses on the other. Up to that time the farm had been valued as one unit; the farmhouse, the farm buildings, and the farm land were all taken together and valued as one unit.
When you separate for purposes of valuation land and other parts of the hereditaments, you introduce a new division, and it was felt at that time, and I think with justice, that it would be better, because you made that separation between land and other parts of the hereditament, that you should value the farmhouse on a different basis from that upon which it had hitherto been valued. It had hitherto been valued as part of the hereditament, namely, as something which was used for purposes connected with the farm. The division for the purposes of valuation does not in any way alter the conditions attached to the use of the house. The house could only be used in connection with the farm, and therefore it was provided, in making that alteration in the division of these hereditaments, that although the house was in future to be valued separately from the land, that should not mean that the house was to be valued as though it were a house which it was open to anybody to go and live in apart from the occupation of the farm. We are repealing the Act of 1896, but, in accordance with the promise I gave when the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill was before the House, I have included this Clause to continue the old conditions. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that that is unjust? It is not true to begin with.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It must be regarded as unjust by those people who
do not enjoy an artificially low assessment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The opinion of some people who would like to have their hereditaments differently valued is another matter, but I am not talking of the opinion of prejudiced people; I am talking of abstract justice. It does seem to me that abstract justice is on the side of the farmer. It is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that all property has been screwed up. What we are doing now is re-valuing all property throughout the country, and in future that has to be done every five years.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As I understand it, other property may be reassessed and pushed up, but the farm remains at the figure which stands in the assessment book to-day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no, not necessarily so. The Clause does not say anything of the kind. It is not true that all property is being screwed up. What is true is that instead of rating authorities being allowed to value when they please and, as a matter of fact, sometimes allowing property to remain for 20 or 25 years without any fresh valuation, all authorities must now value at the same time and at certain stated intervals. The result is that all will value more or less on the same basis; whereas previously one authority valued at present day values and another authority valued at the values of 25 years ago. It is obvious, I think, that property which stands at the valuation which was its proper valuation 25 years ago must be improperly valued to-day.
When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that assessments are being screwed up, what he really means is that the valuation is being brought up to date: but it is not true that all property has risen in value in the last 25 years. You will find some property which has not. I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he has investigated the subject, must know that where there has been no valuation for a long time most of the property has increased in value, but that there are some properties which have not increased in value and the assessment of which has not been raised. I have instances within my personal knowledge. [Interruption.]
No, not of farmhouses, but of residential houses in quarters which have become less fashionable than they were, and where houses do not command a higher rent than before but a lower rent. In those cases the valuation has not been raised. With regard to these farmhouses we do not say that farmhouses are always to remain at the same valuation—not at all. What the Clause says is that in any valuation which takes place the farmhouses are to be valued on the understanding that they can only be used as houses in connection with the farms on which they are situated. That does not mean that their value cannot be raised. If the value of the farm had gone up I imagine that that would necessarily bring an increase in the value of the farmhouse, because the person who was going to occupy that farm would be willing to give more for the farmhouse if ho could make money out of the farm than if he could not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is absolutely-impossible to calculate a thing like that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it maybe impossible to get a calculation which would find universal acceptance, but it is not impossible to calculate; that is a necessary process which always has to be gone through in a re-valuation of any kind. I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this provision is giving a special favour to farmers is really not justified by the facts. It is only recognising what are the facts of the case. It is a provision which is fair to the farmers and not in the least unfair to any other class of ratepayers.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman says we are dealing with a matter of abstract justice. May I ask him what were the instructions of his Department to the local authorities in the mining areas, where a considerable number of new houses have been erected in the past few years? What directions were given with regard to assessing houses which are now tenanted by miners? Obviously the old practice of assessing on the basis of the hypothetical rent or the cost of the house could not be followed, and, therefore, some artificial basis of assessment had to be produced. Because the mining industry is so sorely depressed and miners find it impossible to pay normal rents, did the Minister
indicate to the local authorities that in assessing these council houses tenanted by miners the same considerations should apply as he now says are to apply in the case of these houses? If that is not the case, will he tell us what he means by abstract justice? Does he mean merely abstract justice to agriculture, ignoring all other industries, in spite of the depression which exists? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has merely repeated what the Parliamentary Secretary said previously.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not hear what he said.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Which indicates that there is at least identity of thought between the two right hon. Gentlemen, and is, perhaps, a compliment to their Department and themselves. At least they both argue that they are merely preserving for one industry what existed some 30 or 32 years ago. They say that because special treatment was accorded to that one industry 32 years ago, therefore, in spite of any changes which may take place in other industries, the same special treatment is to be employed in the years to come. That is the Minister's interpretation of abstract justice. It may be perfectly true to say that following the 1896 Act certain changes were necessary and that subsequent Acts of Parliament are only preserving the intentions of those who passed that Act, but when we are perpetuating a special concession to one particular industry, we ought at least to have some regard to other industries which are suffering equally badly.
I should not justify my existence here if I did not remind the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of the miners living in the division which I try to represent are paying more in rates weekly than is paid in rent and rates for the majority of houses which are dealt with by this particular Clause. I see no reason why miners who go home week after week, after working the full number of days available, with less than a sovereign for the maintenance of their wives and children, should have extra burdens imposed upon them for the purpose of preserving a concession given to an industry 32 years ago. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to abstract justice, he ought to qualify that by saying abstract
justice to a particular section of the community with no sort of relation to any other section of the community. In the new valuations in the future the continuance of this system will preserve for one industry benefits for which men in other industries are obliged to pay. I suggest that this abstract justice ought to be available to all industries, and not to one only.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On this question of abstract justice I should like to mention a class of workmen whose wages are not much more than those of the agricultural labourer—I refer to the road workers in agricultural districts. They constitute a class of workers whose wages in the main will be about the average of the agricultural labourer, but under this scheme their rates will be higher and I do not see why the road workers should suffer at the expense of someone else.

The CHAIRMAN: I should like the hon. Member to explain what connection his argument has with the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was following the course which the Debate has taken, but I will come now to the question of the farm house. Hon. Members opposite declare that the prospects of the farming community are distinctly worse, and that is why the Government have introduced these proposals. It does not seem to me that under this Measure there is any prospect of a reduction of the assessments of various kinds of properties other than those dealt with in this Measure. Let me give an illustration. Suppose a farmer pays 10s. per week for his house and a wheelwright pays 10s. Let us suppose that they are both equal as far as this world's goods are concerned. In that case, tinder this Bill the assessment of the wheelwright will go up 50 per cent., and the amount to be raised in rates must remain the same. On the other hand, the assessment of the farmer will fall in like proportion, and therefore the farmer is in pocket both ways. If the Minister of Health is out for abstract justice, will he try to reconcile those two cases? The farmer not only escapes a higher assessment, but he gets de-rating as well. I think, if
the right hon. Gentleman really wishes to establish abstract justice, he should try some other way.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I understand that a new assessment will be made every five years under this Bill. Suppose a particular farm ceases to be a farm and is occupied for some other purpose by a person in some other occupation who can afford to pay a higher rate than the farmer. Will the assessment committee in that case be empowered to reassess that property at any time during the five years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that an assessment does not stand for five years, and it is always open to the local authority to amend an assessment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In the case of the sinking of a new mine let us assume that there is a house occupied by an agricultural labourer, and assessed under the special assessment provided by this Bill. If that particular cottage is occupied to-morrow by a miner, will there be a reassessment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what would happen in that case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Minister of Health is not responsible for the assessing of property throughout the country. That is done by the local authorities, and I cannot say what local authorities would do under those circumstances. I suspect, however, that they would make some change in the conditions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Clause we are discussing has no effect whatever on cottages of that kind. There would be no benefit whatever to the tenants under this Clause which refers solely to farm house property.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 58 (Removal of limit on borrowing powers of local authorities) and 59 (Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 60.—(Adaptation of enactments relating to water rates.)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 50, to leave out from the word "the" in line 7, to the end of line 8, and to insert instead thereof the words "gross annual value for Income Tax purposes."
This is a somewhat difficult Amendment to follow, but I think the House will agree that it is a sensible one. This Clause adapts the new rating system to the old water rates, and it says:
.—(1) Any provision of any enactment directing that the amount of any water rate shall or may be determined by reference to the rateable value of any property as appearing in the valuation list for the time being in force, shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted a reference to the net annual value as so appearing.
Take the case of a farm in which the new net annual value is going to be the basis of the water rate. In that case, the farm land, being no longer rated at all, the annual yalue of the house alone is not a fair criterion of what the tenant ought to pay in water rate. Sub-section (2) provides that in the event of any dispute the water rate shall be determined by two justices of the peace as disputes are now determined under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. Therefore, the object of this Clause is to give the decision as to the rateable value of the farm for water rate purposes to two justices. Why should not the Government take the perfectly simple method of basing the water rate upon the gross annual value of the farm for Income Tax purposes? The farm is still of the same value for Income Tax purposes. It is true that you have spoiled the annual rateable value and cannot take it as the basis of the water rate any longer, but you can take the gross annual value for Income Tax purposes, which still remains the same after as before the change. I submit it would be better to take a uniform valuation made by Somerset House, which has always in the past been a more just valuation than the local valuation, and that you should take that as the basis of the water rate rather than drag in this new system of employing two justices, who are generally overworked men, to go round and value farms when they have no experience of that sort of valuation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am very glad to be able to try to inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the purpose of this Clause. The purpose is merely to preserve the existing basis of payment for the water supply which, as he is aware, is sometimes supplied by meter and sometimes according to rateable value.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But you are destroying rateable value.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Rateable value will now be replaced, for the purpose of measuring the cost of the water supply, by net annual value, which will be the same thing as the old rateable value. The old rateable value is now to be replaced for the purpose of measuring the water supply by the net annual value.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That only takes into account the house in a farm property.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means. If the water is supplied not by meter but according to rateable value, it will in future be supplied by what is called net annual value. The net annual value will be the same as the rateable value to-day, so that the purpose is merely to preserve the status quo and not to allow a person who consumes water to get the benefit of any alteration which this Act makes in the relief of rates. He will have to pay for his water on the same footing as he does to-day, and it is in order to adapt the existing law to changes which are made under Clause 55 that the words "net annual value" are substituted for the words "rateable value." Therefore, there is no change at all which will affect anybody. It is merely to preserve the existing system, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the only object of his Amendment would be, for some reason which he has not yet explained, to add to the burdens which the properties concerned would have to bear, because presumably the words "gross annual value for Income Tax purposes," are more than would be implied by the words "net annual value." If they are not more than that, I do not understand what his purpose is in taking those words in preference to the words contained in the Clause as it stands.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid we are at cross purposes. Either the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech or he has merely read his brief, which deals with something quite different. I am talking of farming properties. In future there will be no record whatever of the net annual value of the land or buildings, the only thing recorded being the net annual value of the house itself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is exactly where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone astray. There is no longer to be any record of rateable value but of net annual value. All that is necessary is met by inserting the words "net annual value" in order to take the place of the old rateable value which has now disappeared.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should point out that under a certain Clause of the Bill, the actual recording of the annual value of land, whether net annual value or net rateable value, is excluded.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the net annual value for Income Tax purposes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, the net annual value for Income Tax purposes. The right hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate the point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rateable value disappears but the net annual value for Income Tax remains.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now I understand perfectly clearly. That is what I wanted, that it should be for Income Tax purposes instead of the other way. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the point in Sub-section (2)? I thought in that Clause there was some peculiar method of dealing with farm property and I do not see that the Sub-section is necessary if you are taking the net annual value for Income Tax purposes, which is universal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman's point is about Sub-section (2). It says:
Whereby any enactment, including this section, the amount of any water rate is to be determined by reference to the gross value or the net annual value of any property as appearing in the valuation list for the time being in force, then, if the value referred to does not appear in the valuation list, it shall, as from the appointed day, be determined in the event of any dispute by two justices of the peace.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That again refers to Income Tax. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 50, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that as respects any property which is an industrial or freight transport hereditament or part of such a hereditament, elsewhere than in the County of London, whereof the rateable value would, if it had continued to be ascertained under the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act or of any scheme made under Section sixty-four of that Act, have been taken to be the amount produced by making any deduction from the net annual value, this sub-section shall have effect as if the words the net annual value as so appearing meant the amount produced by making from the net annual value the like deductions as would have been made under the said provisions.
I want to move the Amendment only for the sake of getting a statement from the Minister. I understand that the point raised in it, which is a question of docks and harbours and land covered by water, is not quite met by the form of words in my Amendment. I, therefore, wish to ask the Minister whether a statement can be made upon the point to be met. I understand it is admitted that there is a real point of substance to be met and one which was intended to be covered by the Amendment which I am moving.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There would only be substance in the Amendment if it were the fact that properties of the kind referred to, land covered with water, docks and so forth, were rated for water upon their annual value. I am informed that there are no such cases and all properties are rated for water, not upon the annual value, but by meter or in some other manner, and that up to the present, no instance of anything else has been forwarded to the Minister. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that anything requires amendment, this does not appear to be necessary.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am very much obliged to the Minister for his statement. I will go further into the question of the dock and harbour authorities, and see whether they have any proposals to put
forward. I thank the Minister for his statement, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 61.—(Adaptation of enactments relating to drainage rates.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 83.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[9.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fenby, T. D.
Meller, R. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldos)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forrest, W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Apsley, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morris, R. H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Gates, Percy
Oakley, T.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Berry, Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Betterton, Henry B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Owen, Major G.


Bevan, S. J
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hacking, Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harland, A.
pilditch. Sir Philip


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harrison, G. J. C
Radford, E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, Sir Walter


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henn, Sir Sydney H
Ropner, Major L,


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hills, Major John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sinclair, Col. T, (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Clayton, G. C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cope, Major Sir William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W.H.(Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lamb, J. Q.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dawson, sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Lumley, L. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Waddington, R.


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Warrender, sir victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacIntyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Withers, John James
Wragg, Herbert
Wallace.


Wolmer, viscount




NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bondfield, Margaret
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W.R., Elland)
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Smith.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Adaptation of enactments as to qualifications of jurors and special jurors.)

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—in page 50, to leave out from the word "force" in line 38 to the end of line 40— I think it is consequential on one of the Amendments to Clause 54. I shall be glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not know it had any connection with Clause 54. Clause 62 deals with the qualification of special jurors. The fact that the rateable value of a farm has been cut down under this Bill would normally exclude from the ranks of the special jury a large number of farmers. Their houses, being assessed at an artificially low value, they will cease to be qualified for special jurors, and under this Clause the Government seek to rectify that and to keep their farming special jurors, although they live in houses whose rateable value would not otherwise qualify them. It seems to me that is not very desirable.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: At the moment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going into the merits of the Amendment. What I want to get from him is the effect of it, a point on which I am not quite clear.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 50, to leave out from the word "force" in line 38 to the end of line 40.
A farm at present let at £100 a year will be assessed at £40 a year, and therefore the farmer will be qualified as a special juror. Under the new scheme his house alone will be assessed at, say, £10 a year and he will cease to be qualified as a special juror. Under this Clause as it stands, he will be restored to the ranks of the special jurors by these words:
if the property is not included in that list the net annual value thereof for Income Tax purposes,
which is the full rateable value of the farm. So that if these words remain in, the farmer will still be eligible as a special juror, and if the words are taken out, as my Amendment suggests, he will cease to be eligible. I do not think special juries are to be encouraged. I do not want to see a larger number of recruits for the special jury lists, and I do not want to see farmers as special
jurors. They are a body who will always give any case against anyone who calls himself a Labour man, and very often Liberals will suffer equally forcibly at their hands, and I cannot think this House will be ready to give these rights to people who live in houses assessed at less than £10 a year. It seems to me they are trying to get the best of both worlds. They are trying to get an artificially low valuation for their houses, so as to pay no rates, and they are trying at the same time to get rights as special jurors. I would gladly see all special juries swept away. The ordinary jury is quite enough for me. I can see no reason why we should give this special privilege to a class which already has special privileges enough.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman regards service upon a special jury as a privilege or a burden. When he began, I rather thought he was going to say that no one who lived in a highly-rated house should have to bear the burden of serving on a special jury, but as he developed his argument, he appeared to think that no one who lived in a highly-rated house should have the privilege of serving on a special jury. Whatever his views may be about jurymen, and whatever experience he may have of the verdicts of juries, the value of the services of the farming class upon special juries is such that we desire to retain the advantage of their common sense and experience in the administration of the law.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 63—(Adaptation of 1 and 8 Geo. 5 c. 64. s 41 (9).)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 51, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to the word "be" in line 27.
During the passage of every long Bill the Government always make one particularly unimportant concession to the Opposition. The acceptance of one Amendment is de rigueur, and I offer them this one. No man who is not actuated by sheer partisan animosity could refuse this Amendment. Under this Clause the Representation of the People Act, 1918, is modified. Under that Act
people who reside in premises assessed at more than a certain amount have a right of vote in respect of that property and under this new scheme a few of them might lose that right. Therefore the Government have put in this very long Clause in order to retain those people on the list I am quite willing that they should be retained on the list, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not reduce the length of the Clause by at least one-half. Let it stand that in future, "the yearly value of the land or premises shall be taken to be the gross annual value of the land or premises for Income Tax purposes, any necessary apportionment of that value being made by the registration officer." If the right hon. Gentleman would take that as the definition for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act, he could cut out the whole of paragraph (a), the whole of paragraph (c) and the first two lines of paragraph (b). It would be a much shorter definition. The object would be achieved much more cheaply, and we should have applied to every case the simple principle of the gross annual value of the land or premises for Income Tax purposes. I do not believe there will be half-a-dozen people in the country affected by the definition so far as gaining or losing votes is concerned, but there will be an enormous number of unfortunate registration officers affected who will otherwise have to study as to whether a man comes under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this Clause.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given two reasons why I should accept the Amendment, I am afraid both are rather frivolous. The first is that it is the custom to make some sacrifice to the Opposition. In answer to that, we have over 50 Clauses yet to discuss, and we need not come to the sacrifice at this early stage. The second reason was that it would shorten the Clause, but shortening it would add very much to the expense of its administration. We have under the provisions dealing with the franchise provided that persons occupying property of a yearly value of £10 have a right to vote. Now we have abolished the gross value in some of these cases by the Valuation Act and we have to put something in its place, and we say, if the gross value appears in the list, it
is to remain. If it does not appear in the list we are to take the gross annual value for Income Tax purposes. There is a third case under paragraph (c) where the value does not appear in the valuation list in either case. You must have something in order to provide for them. You cannot leave out paragraph (c) altogether.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But if it does not occur under Schedule A for Income Tax purposes, is a man thereby entitled to a vote? I think that Schedule A covers everything.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, we are not altering anything here at all in this Bill. We are trying as far as we can to preserve the status quo. We are not trying to alter anything, but where things have already been altered we are endeavouring to make the matter uniform, and paragraph (c) is designed to fill up a gap which otherwise would not be provided for. Therefore, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that although this Clause may be long, it is no longer than is necessary to deal with the particular class of cases.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I still do not see the point of the right hon. Gentleman. A man is getting two qualifications instead of one. Under Schedule A everything will be taken into consideration. A man who is not working his coal mine or his quarry is not the sort of citizen who should be given an extra vote. Anyway, I see no necessity for providing an additional property vote.

Mr. SKELTON: Is it not the case that quarries are not taxed under annual value but on profits? If there are no profits there can be no annual value.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Whether they are taxed on their profits or not, they come under Schedule A all the same.

Mr. SKELTON: Profits and annual value are different.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Of course they are.

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, but factories are not taxed under Schedule A.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You get all property under Schedule A; not only house property but factory property as well.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that quarries and mines although under Schedule A are not taxed on their value but, unlike other Schedule A subjects, are taxed on their profits.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is a diversion. They have an annual value when they are used. They are taxed under Schedule A. It is only when they are idle that they are not. Therefore I do not see why we should stretch a point to provide votes for these people. If you are to have a property vote, have it on a simple, straightforward case applicable to everybody. The gross annual value has been made more or less cast-iron by nearly 100 years of experience, and it is always recognised as being the most just of all the valuations which are made.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 109.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Casaels, J. D.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, G. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Apsley, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Atkinson, C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Convey, Sir W. Martin


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cope, Major Sir William


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bullock, Captain M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Betterton, Henry B.
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Bevan, S. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerst, Yeovll)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.(
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ropner, Major L.


Drewe, C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Everard, w. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Long, Major Eric
Skelton, A. N.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fermoy, Lord
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacIntyre, Ian
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tasker, R. Inigo


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hacking, Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harland, A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hartington, Marquess Of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Waddington, R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hills, Major John Waller
Perring, Sir William George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilcher G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, Sir Walter
Wragg, Herbert


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N.)
Renter, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, R. s. (Cumb'l'nd, whiteh'n)
Rentoul, G. S.
Captain Margesson and Captain




Wallace.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellamy, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Owen, Major G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Bromley, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Connolly, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Sexton, James


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edge, Sir William
Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


England, Colonel A.
Lowth, T.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, T. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell




Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Strauss, E. A.
Townend, A. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sullivan, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sutton, J. E.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thorne, W. (Wast Ham, Plaistow)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thurtle, Ernest
Wellock, Wilfred



Tinker, John Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 64 (Power to require copies of values in force under Schedule A of 8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 40) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 65.—(Consequential provisions as to certain payments in respect of Welsh education.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I can assure the Noble Lord, the President of the Board of Education (Lord E. Percy) that I intervene in no hostile spirit to the Clause, but merely for the purpose of a short discussion, and to elicit an explanation on certain points. As I understand it, the purpose of the Clause is to stabilise the maximum amount payable out of Parliamentary funds for the purposes of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1899, at the maximum amount payable ending on the 31st day of March, 1929. I admit that the Clause carries with it the entire approval of the Association of Welsh Education Authorities. For my part, I desire in no way to jeopardise the passage of the Clause as it stands, but I wish to raise one or two points of difficulty that are in my mind.
The Noble Lord will recognise that these intermediate schools in Wales derive their revenue from two or three sources. They depend in some measure upon the revenue derived from certain charitable endowments and they also can obtain sustenance and help through the medium of the rates—I think to the extent of a percentage of a halfpenny rate. Then there is also the Treasury grant. The Noble Lord will appreciate my point when I say that the revenue derivable from charitable endowments and from the rates is a revenue which, under present conditions, may be a decreasing revenue. I happen to have been a pupil in a school which was founded by a charity, the proceeds of which estate
mainly depend upon the revenue from land and the minerals under the land. In the year 1929 the output in respect of coal is less than it has been in many previous years and, consequently, the revenue derivable from the charitable endowment from coal will be less in 1929 than would be the case in more prosperous years. It is true that there will be, possibly, in the future, benefits derivable from other resources. For instance, the proceeds of a halfpenny rate in future years may be greater by reason of reassessment and revaluation, but that does not meet my difficulty. If, as we anticipate, with the revival of prosperity in Wales there is a revival also of activity in the direction of secondary education, may we take it that this stabilised sum of money, which is to be the maximum which will be payable on the 31st March, 1929, will be equal to the needs of the new developments which we anticipate in secondary education in future years in Wales?
The education authorities feel entirely reassured on this matter, but my trouble arises from the fact that part of their revenue which goes to make up the maximum of their resources for any given year, that part derivable from the rates, may in the next year or two contract, and my fear is that this new stabilised maximum will not be enough to make up for the decrease in revenue derivable from charitable endowments and rate resources. If the Noble Lord can assure me, as I believe the educational authorities have been assured, that there is no danger that the financial resources of the intermediate schools in Wales will be in jeopardy or will be contracted in the future, I shall welcome the passing of this Clause and be grateful, as the educational authorities are grateful, I believe, for the stabilisation of the sum at the figure that would be payable on the 31st March, 1929. I should like an assurance that this does not place intermediate schools in jeopardy in the matter of the funds at their disposal. There is to be every quinquennium a review of the resources of various local authorities.
Will this sum also be liable to review every five years or is it to be made a permanent figure until it is altered at a future date by Act of Parliament? Will this sum be liable to review within the next five years so that if it is found inadequate it may be increased?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I think the answer to the hon. Member is that so far as Welsh intermediate schools which depend for their revenue upon this Treasury Grant are concerned, this Clause will amply safeguard and will protect them. Their position at any rate will not be worse than it was before. The hon. Member, however, touched on the much larger question, as to how far Welsh intermediate schools, which are at the present moment only a part of the system of Welsh secondary education, can maintain themselves on the percentage basis. That is a wide question entirely out of order for me to discuss on this Bill. So far as this Bill affects them at all it protects them against their position being in any way worsened. As to whether this is subject to quinquennial review, of course the limit fixed by Act of Parliament is not variable at a quinquennial resurvey of the position without a fresh Act of Parliament.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: May I say one word on this question. It is quite natural that a Bill of this complicated character should lead to a certain amount of apprehension on the part of local education authorities, and I know that those who are interested in intermediate education in Wales did feel a certain amount of apprehension when the scheme was first adumbrated. It is fair to say, however, although I have no authority to speak officially, that it is generally recognised that the Government have met the apprehensions they felt in so far as it is possible to meet them in a Bill of this character. Therefore, I think this is a Clause which we ought to accept and as far as any opposition is concerned that we should thank the Government for inserting it.

CLAUSE 66.—(General adaptation of enactments and other documents.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. BROWN: This is the only Clause in regard to which there is no explanation in the White Paper issued in connection with this Bill, and although I have given some little time to its consideration I am not at all sure how far this general adaptation of enactments and other documents goes. I shall be obliged if the Minister of Health, will give us some hint as to its real scope and effect, especially seeing that there are certain orders to be made under Subsection (3) which seem to go a long way with regard to these documents and draft orders affecting them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is very difficult to reply to such a general inquiry. If the hon. Member had put to me a specific point I would have tried to give an answer. He may take it that this is a Clause which is not controversial in character, and is merely a machinery Clause devised for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 67 (Citation and construction of Part V) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Penny.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Ten o'Clock.